Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Activities for General Aviation Airport Managers Concerned About Hazardous Wildlife Problems P A R T 2 Part 2 is intended for GA airport managers who must develop programs to control hazardous wildlife at their airports. It covers the following topics: • Measuring the threat (Chapter 4); • Developing a wildlife control program at general aviation airports (Chapter 5); • Evaluating wildlife hazard management programs at general aviation airports (Chapter 6); • Wildlife hazard management training for general aviation airport personnel (Chapter 7); and • Government agencies and regulations impacting wildlife hazard control at general aviation airports (Chapter 8).

Introduction Experts within the U.S. civil and military aviation communities recognize that the threat to aviation safety (as well as the resulting economic repercussions) from collisions between aircraft and wildlife (wildlife strikes) is increasing (see for example, Dolbeer 2000, Allan and Orosz 2001, MacKinnon et al. 2001, Dolbeer and Eschenfelder 2003, Cleary and Dolbeer 2005, and Cleary et al. 2007). There are several reasons for this increase, the most obvious of which is the increas- ing number of in-service aircraft, both commercial and private. Also, many populations of wildlife species commonly involved in strikes have increased markedly in the last few decades, creating more possibilities for concern. 87 C H A P T E R 4 Measuring the Threat A Bell 407 air ambulance helicopter en route at 1,000 ft AGL hit three blue-winged teal during a flight to an automobile accident in South Dakota in April 2005. The windshield shattered, and glass and duck blood were splattered through the aircraft, temporarily blinding the pilot. The pilot recovered and made an emergency landing on a road. (Photo courtesy USDA)

Most research to address this problem has been directed at the commercial sector. Little if any effort has been made to analyze, evaluate, and measure wildlife strike problems encountered at GA airports and by non-air-carrier (i.e., GA) aircraft. Most studies of wildlife strikes at the national and international levels have either considered civil aviation in total—a combination of general and commercial aviation (see for example, Cleary et al. 2000, 2002; Cleary et al. 2004, 2005, 2006; and Dolbeer and Wright 2008)—or just military aviation by itself (see for example, Richardson and West 2000) or some combination of the two—civil and military (see for exam- ple, Thorpe 2003, 2005). Most funding, research, and regulatory efforts directed toward addressing the civil aviation wildlife strike problem come from the federal level, specifically the FAA. Most of these efforts have been directed toward certificated airports to conduct operations involving certain commer- cial air carrier aircraft. Little federal effort along these lines has been directed specifically toward GA airports. The FAA began collecting wildlife aircraft strike data in the early 1970s. Other than cursory analysis, the wildlife strike data was never subjected to rigorous analysis until 1995 (see Dolbeer et al. 1995). Unfortunately, by that time most of the pre-1990 data had been lost. The first analy- sis of data from the FAA’s National Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database, and all subsequent analy- ses, did not distinguish between strikes involving air carrier aircraft and those involving GA aircraft. Also, no effort was made to distinguish between GA airports and certificated airports. For this guidebook, the FAA’s National Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database was searched with two different parameters: for strikes occurring at identified U.S. GA airports and for strikes involving GA aircraft regardless of where the strike occurred (see Cleary and Dickey 2008a and 2008b). GA aircraft were defined as fixed-wing aircraft having one or two engines and weighing less than 59,525 lbs (27,000 kg). Many strike reports were found involving aircraft types com- monly used by air carriers. All of these aircraft types have been involved in wildlife strikes at GA airports. Because of concerns with the susceptibility of specific aircraft types to damage from wildlife strikes, those aircraft types were included in the analysis. The search returned 11,743 usable records. The strike data was then analyzed to determine the scope of the problem and to identify the wildlife species posing the greatest hazard to GA aircraft. 88 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Resident Canada geese populations are increasing at over 12% annually. They will readily socialize with domestic geese in parks and other places where people feed them. (Photo E. Cleary)

Ranking Wildlife Species Hazardous to General Aviation Aircraft GA airport managers have limited resources (time, money, and personnel) to manage prob- lems at the airport. Many species of wildlife can pose a threat, either directly or indirectly, to avi- ation safety. However, not all wildlife species are equally hazardous. To prioritize expenditures of their limited resources, GA airport managers need to know which wildlife species pose the greatest hazard to GA aircraft. GA aircraft report much higher damage rates from wildlife strikes than the national average. Cleary et al. (2007) found that between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2006, 13% of all U.S. civil aircraft involved in bird strikes were damaged and 55% of all U.S. civil aircraft involved in mammal strikes were damaged. For strikes involving GA aircraft at GA airports between Janu- ary 1, 1990, and October 31, 2008, 33% of GA aircraft reporting bird strikes were damaged and 90% of GA aircraft reporting mammal strikes were damaged. Between January 1, 1990, and October 31, 2008, 309 identified wildlife species or species groups were involved in 11,038 strikes with fixed-wing aircraft having one or two engines and weighing less than 59,525 lbs (27,000 kg). There were reports of 31 identified mammal species involved in 951 strikes. There were reports of 4 identified reptile species involved in 17 strikes. There were reports of 270 identified bird species involved in 10,775 strikes. Species involved in less than 10 strikes were dropped (580 reports or 4.94% of the total) from further analysis to allow easier identification of those species that pose the greatest threat to GA aircraft. There were 11 species of mammals and 73 species of birds that were involved in 10 or more strikes. The 84 species were combined into 25 groups. Each group was ranked on seven factors to determine the wildlife groups that pose the greatest hazard to GA aircraft. The seven factors are: • The percentage of damaging strikes, • The number of strikes causing minor or uncertain damage, • The number of strikes causing substantial damage or destroying the aircraft, Measuring the Threat 89 Between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2007, white-tailed deer were involved in 398 reported wildlife strikes with GA aircraft; 358 of these strikes caused damage to the aircraft, totaling $22.1 million. (Photo courtesy D. Dewhurst, U.S. FWS National Digital Library)

• The number of strikes having a negative effect on the flight, • The amount of aircraft down time for each incident, • The direct damage cost for each incident, and • The total secondary cost for each incident. The results are presented in Table 4.1. Please see Cleary and Dickey (2008a) for a detailed dis- cussion of the ranking process. The ranking scores for the various ranking factors for all species or species groups were totaled to develop an overall composite ranking. Ranking all wildlife species or species groups, the six most hazardous species or species groups for fixed-wing aircraft having one or two engines and weighing less than 59,525 lbs (27,000 kg) are (1) deer, (2) gulls/terns, (3) geese, (4) ducks, (5) raptors, and (6) vultures (Table 4.1). The hazard ranking scores are relative to the hazard posed by deer. The relative hazard scores were adjusted to a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the most haz- ardous. Deer, being the most hazardous, were ranked at 100 on the relative hazard ranking scale. Gulls/terns scored 95; this means they are 5% less hazardous to GA aircraft than deer. Geese scored 69; they are 31% less hazardous than deer. Ducks scored 56; they are 44% less hazardous than deer. In the lowest ranking, bats, being the least hazardous to GA aircraft, were scored at 14, or 86% less hazardous to GA aircraft than deer (Table 4.1). Wildlife Strikes at General Aviation Airports Many GA airports are located in suburban or rural environments. Most of the species involved in the wildlife strikes are ones that are well adapted to the environment found at or near airports. The large open areas at or around airports are well suited to their needs—providing opportuni- ties for feeding, loafing, reproduction, or escape. 90 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2007, gulls were involved in 464 reported strikes with GA aircraft; 152 of those strikes caused aircraft damage totaling $3.1 million. (Photo E. Cleary)

Measuring the Threat 91 Species or Species Group Sum of All Rankings Relative Hazard Rankings Deer 18 100 Gulls/Terns 19 95 Geese 26 69 Ducks 32 56 Raptors 37 49 Vultures 41 44 Doves 48 38 Canines 50 36 Herons/Egrets/Cranes 52 35 Blackbirds/Starlings 55 33 Pelicans/Cormorants 67 27 Owls 71 25 Crows 78 23 Gallinaceous 82 22 Shorebirds 83 22 Thrushes 83 22 Laysan Albatross 94 19 Sparrow-like 100 18 Foxes/Raccoons 102 18 Meadowlarks 104 17 Swallows 110 16 Perching birds 114 16 Rodents/Lagomorphs 117 15 Bats 127 14 Table 4.1. Relative hazard ranking for wildlife species involved in 10 or more strikes with GA aircraft, January 1, 1990, to October 31, 2008, in the United States. The wildlife species are ranked on the relative “severity of outcome” if involved in a strike. Deer, the species having the greatest potential to cause aircraft damage, are ranked highest (100), and all other species are ranked relative to deer. Raptors are about half as hazardous as deer, and bats are 86% less hazardous than deer. Between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2007, Canada geese were involved in 216 reported strikes with GA aircraft; 149 of those strikes caused aircraft damage totaling $5.5 million. (Photo courtesy T. Bowman, U.S. FWS National Digital Library)

There has not been the same significant increase in the number of strikes reported from GA airports as there has been overall for U.S. civil aviation. At GA airports, there was a general increase in the number of reported bird strikes between 1990 and 2004. However, after peaking in 2003, the number of reported bird strikes declined sharply, from a high of 233 in 2003 to 167 in 2006. There was a slight increase in 2007 and early 2008. The number of reported mam- mal strikes showed a similar pattern. There was a general increase in the number of reported mammal strikes between 1990 and 1997. Since its peak in 1996, there has been a general decline in the number of reported mammal strikes. There was a slight increase in 2005, followed by a sharp decrease in 2006, 2007, and early 2008 (Figure 4.1). The reasons for these fluctuations are unclear. There did not appear to be any correlation between the number of hours flown by GA aircraft and the number of reported strikes. Between January 1, 1990, and October 31, 2008, the FAA received 3,531 wildlife strike reports from 863 GA airports, involving 189 aircraft types. Admittedly, the sample size is relatively small compared with the overall size of the FAA’s database. However, given the number of years cov- ered (almost 19) and the number of GA airports reporting (863), the sample is large enough to allow development of a rudimentary but accurate picture of the hazardous wildlife problems commonly faced at GA airports by GA aircraft. Almost 86% (N = 3,035) of the reported strikes involved birds; a little over 14% (N = 495) involved mammals. Only two bat strikes and one reptile strike were reported. Because of the low number of bat strikes, no further effort was made to distinguish between terrestrial and flying mammals. These percentages are in marked contrast to what is typically reported. For example, for the period 1990 to 2006, Cleary et al. (2007) found 97.5% of reported U.S. civil aircraft wildlife strikes involved birds, 2.2% involved terrestrial mammals, 0.2% involved bats, and 0.1% involved reptiles. Please see Cleary and Dickey (2008b) for a detailed analysis of wildlife strikes at GA airports. The Cost of Wildlife Strikes to General Aviation For this portion of the analysis, strikes occurring at or near identified U.S. GA airports between January 1, 1990, and October 31, 2009, were considered. During that time the FAA received 88,881 reports of wildlife aircraft strikes involving U.S. civil aircraft; 4% (3,531) of these reports 92 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports 0 50 100 150 200 250 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year N u m b er of bird strikes 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Num ber of m am m al strikes Bird strikes Mammal strikes Figure 4.1. Wildlife aircraft strikes at general aviation airports, USA, 1990 to 2007.

involved strikes occurring at identified U.S. GA airports and involved fixed-wing aircraft having one or two engines and weighing less than 59,525 lbs (27,000 kg). Human Deaths and Injuries Resulting from Wildlife Strikes During the period analyzed, there were 22 bird strikes reported that resulted in 25 human injuries. Waterfowl, vultures, hawks, and pigeons caused the most injuries. There were 19 mam- mal strikes that resulted in 28 human injuries. Deer, cattle, and domestic dogs caused the most injuries. No human deaths resulted from wildlife aircraft strikes occurring at GA airports during the time period considered. However, human deaths have occurred because of wildlife strikes to GA aircraft while the aircraft was en route. Most recently: • The instructor pilot of a Cessna 172 and his student both died when the leading edge of the left wing of their aircraft hit what is believed to have been a black vulture at 800 ft AGL on July 8, 2003, in central Texas. The aircraft was not able to maintain lift and crashed. • A University of North Dakota instructor pilot and student pilot died October 23, 2007, when their Piper PA-44 Seminole crashed after it struck one or more Canada geese near Browerville, Minnesota. • Five people died March 4, 2008, northwest of Oklahoma City when their Cessna 500 struck several American white pelicans. Economic Losses The economic losses to general aviation due to wildlife strikes are summarized in Table 4.2. For the 18-year, 10-month period, reported losses from all wildlife strikes totaled 303,094 hours of aircraft downtime and $48.6 million in monetary losses. Losses due to bird strikes totaled 102,697 hours of aircraft downtime and $24.2 million in monetary losses. Reported losses from mammal strikes totaled 200,397 hours of aircraft downtime and $24.4 million in monetary losses. Large mammals, particularly deer, represent a greater economic threat to GA aircraft than do birds. Analysis of wildlife strike reports from U.S. airports and airlines suggests less than 20% of all strikes are reported to the FAA (Cleary et al. 2005 and Wright and Dolbeer 2005). Measuring the Threat 93 This Falcon 20 ingested at least four mourning doves into the #1 engine and five into the #2 engine during takeoff from a midwestern airport. About 20 dove carcasses were picked up on the runway at the strike site. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair. Mourning doves weigh about 4 ounces (120 grams). (Photo courtesy USDA)

94 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports On approach to an eastern U.S. airport, this CRJ with 35 people on board sustained a goose strike to the radome, at 250 knots. There was major damage to the radome and electronic compo- nents. (Photo courtesy FAA) Cost in Millions of Dollars ($) (No. of Reports) Total Reports Total Reports Indicating Adverse Effect Reports Indicating Negative Effect on Flight Reports Indicating Other Negative Effect Reports Indicating Aircraft Damage Reported Time (Hours) Aircraft out of Service (No. of Reports) Direct Cost Other Cost Total Cost 3,531 1,874 1,012 207 1,393 303,094 $44.120 $4.507 $48.627 Totals for 18.83 Years (610) (611) (257) (868) 188 100 54 11 74 16,122 $2.347 $0.240 $2.587 Averages for 18.83 Years (32) (33) (14) (46) Mean loss per incident 497 $0.072 $0.018 $0.090 Estimated minimum annual loss1 49,529 $7.198 $1.748 $8.946 Estimated maximum annual loss2 247,645 $35.989 $8.741 $44.730 1 Minimum values are based on the assumption that all 1,874 reported strikes indicating an adverse effect (negative EOF and/or damage) to aircraft (mean of 100/year) incurred similar amounts of damage and/or downtime and that these reports are all of the adverse-effect strikes that occurred. 2 Maximum values are based on the assumption that the 1,874 reported strikes indicating an adverse effect represent only 20% of the total strikes that occurred (Cleary et al. 2005, Wright and Dolbeer 2005). Table 4.2. Number of reported wildlife strikes indicating damage or a negative EOF, and reported losses in hours of downtime and millions of U.S. dollars, for strikes occurring at identified U.S. general aviation airports involving fixed-wing aircraft having one or two engines and weighing less than 59,525 lbs (27,000 kg), January 1, 1990, to October 31, 2008.

Assuming (1) all 1,874 reported wildlife strikes that had an adverse effect on the aircraft and/or flight caused similar amounts of downtime and/or monetary losses, and (2) these reports are all the damaging strikes that occurred, then at a minimum, wildlife strikes occurring at GA airports annually cost the GA community 49,529 hours each year of aircraft downtime and $8.95 million in monetary losses. Further, assuming a 20% reporting rate, the annual cost of wildlife strikes to the GA commu- nity is estimated to be in excess of 247,645 hours of aircraft downtime and $44.73 million in monetary losses (see Table 4.2). General Aviation Airports and Their Legal Responsibilities General aviation airports range in size from small, privately owned, single turf runways to large metropolitan airports with several runways and thousands of operations a day. Nearly all GA airports face similar problems: a lack of money and the inability to access much of the fed- eral money that larger Part 139 airports can obtain. Because of these budget constraints, many GA airports do little or nothing about wildlife haz- ards at and near their airports, despite the fact that aircraft wildlife strikes pose significant safety risks to the flying public. This disregard for wildlife hazards may result in legal action against the airport operator and the airport sponsor or owner. Many GA airport operators and administrators believe that wildlife occurring at or near the airport is natural and that nothing can be done about it. Their feeling is that if an accident occurs as the result of a wildlife strike, it is an act of nature. Wildlife aircraft strikes can cause injury, death, and/or the loss of an aircraft. Airports may be held liable for not doing enough to control wildlife at or near the airport. Several wildlife aircraft strikes at U.S. airports have resulted in legal action against the airport owners. Measuring the Threat 95 February 26, 1973. Cowbirds attracted to this trash transfer station, which is still in operation, were ingested by a Learjet 24 during departure. The aircraft’s engines failed and the plane crashed, killing eight people and seriously injuring one person on the ground. After a lengthy litigation, the court finally deter- mined that the airport manager could be held liable for failing to take precautions to end the known bird hazards. (Photo E. Cleary)

These legal accusations against airport owners or operators range from negligence to breach of duty (due diligence). In a case involving the City of New Haven, CT, it was ruled that the air- port does have a duty to ensure that the pilots know of all birds or wildlife that are in the area, and in a case involving the City of Watertown, SD, it was ruled that the airport failed to exercise reasonable care to protect pilots and the flying public against the wildlife dangers at the airport. Several other cases cite that a breach of contract may be present if an airport fails to maintain safe conditions for airport users, especially when there is knowledge of existing bird hazards and bird attractions (food, shelter, etc.) at the airport. The courts have held that in such cases the air- port failed to exercise due diligence. 96 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports

Introduction It is recognized that GA airports are not subject to 14 CFR 139. However, no matter the size of a GA airport—small or large—it is important to follow the recommended best management practice when dealing with wildlife problems; Part 139 is the nationally and internationally rec- ognized standard. Many states’ aviation departments and other countries have adopted and adapted it for their uses. In 14 CFR 139.337, Wildlife Hazards, the FAA sets out what it believes should be in wildlife hazard assessments (WHAs) and in WHMPs. This is the accepted national and international standard for WHAs and WHMPs. Since some states’ departments of aviation have adopted in total or in part the FAA requirements, it may be helpful to contact your state department of aviation for further guidance. This information is presented here as a guide and starting point for GA airport managers when attempting to address hazardous wildlife problems at their airports and may vary greatly in use- 97 C H A P T E R 5 Developing a Wildlife Control Program at General Aviation Airports Collisions between wildlife and aircraft are not the only threat to aviation safety posed by wildlife. Here European starlings constructed a nest in the aircraft’s wing. (Photo courtesy U.S. FWS)

fulness due to the size of individual airports. As used here, “wildlife hazard survey” and “wildlife hazard assessment” should be considered synonymous and may be used interchangeably. Not every GA airport will be able to meet the FAA’s WHA and WHMP standards when try- ing to correct airport wildlife problems, nor should every airport have to meet these standards. The extent to which GA airports should try to meet the standards will depend on several factors, including but not necessarily limited to: • The size of, and aeronautical activity at, the airport; • The severity of the problem; and • The resources available—money, personnel, and time—to commit to correcting the problem. Sources of Funding Funding for certain parts of an airport’s wildlife hazard control program is available through the Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports – Office of Airport Planning and Program- ming (APP). APP oversees the AIP. The AIP funds can be used by airports to carry out projects aimed at improving airport operations and safety. The AIP funds are distributed either by direct grants to applicant airports or through block grants to various states. Certain parts of an airport’s program to control hazardous wildlife can be paid for with AIP funds. As a general rule, AIP funds can be used to pay for a WHA and to buy equipment neces- sary to implement a WHMP. AIP funds cannot be used to buy supplies or pay wages. For exam- ple, an airport could use AIP funds to buy a propane cannon, but could not pay for the propane using AIP funds. Similarly, the airport could buy a shotgun with AIP funds, but the airport could not buy ammunition for the shotgun with the AIP funds. In block grant states, airport operators wishing to apply for AIP funds should apply directly to the state department of aviation. In direct grant states, airport operators should apply to the appropriate FAA Airports Division, Regional Office. A list of FAA Regional Offices can be found in Appendix A. Airports accepting AIP funds are required to comply with all associated Grant Assurances. Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance; Assurance 20, Hazard Removal and Mitiga- 98 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports This national wildlife refuge next to a major eastern airport poses a serious hazard to aviation safety. Airport and refuge managers must work closely to reduce the hazard. (Photo E. Cleary)

tion; and Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use have a direct impact on an airport’s wildlife haz- ard control program. The FAA has added several Advisory Circulars to the Grant Assurances. AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports, was added to the AIP list of Grant Assurances in July 1999. Therefore, obligated GA airports are bound by the AC’s requirements. Wildlife Hazard Surveys The first step in developing an airport WHMP is to conduct a WHA. The WHA, conducted by a qualified airport wildlife biologist, provides the scientific basis for the development, imple- mentation, and refinement of a WHMP. Although parts of the WHA may be incorporated directly into the WHMP, they are two separate documents. Requirement for Wildlife Hazard Assessment Outside of emergency situations, air carrier aircraft do not use GA airports, and such air- ports may not be required to conduct WHAs. However, GA airport managers should seri- ously consider conducting a WHA if GA aircraft operating from the airport suffered a multiple wildlife strike, sustained substantial damage from a strike, or ingested wildlife into an engine. Title 14 Part 139.337, Wildlife Hazard Management, applies to certificated airports, not GA airports. But, GA airport managers may find this information helpful. Table 5.1 presents a sec- tion-by-section discussion of 14 CFR 139.337 (b), which covers triggering events for a WHA. The left-hand column contains the regulations and the right-hand column presents a brief expla- nation of the intent of each section. Necessary Elements of a Wildlife Hazard Assessment Title 14 CFR Part 139.337 (c) (1–5) provides specific guidance as to what facts must be addressed in a WHA. Table 5.2 is a point-by-point commentary on each section of the regula- tions concerning the factors to be addressed in a WHA. Developing a Wildlife Control Program at General Aviation Airports 99 Maintaining drainage ditches improves water flow and reduces food and cover sources for birds. (Photo E. Cleary)

100 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports A light aircraft lands next to an airport retention pond (left) that attracts water birds such as the anhinga (right). Airports that have permanent standing water that attracts hazardous wildlife should conduct a wildlife hazard assessment and take actions to reduce hazards to aviation safety. (Photos E. Cleary) 14 CFR 139.337 Comments 14 CFR 139.337 (b). In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate holder shall ensure that a wildlife hazard assessment is conducted when any of the following events occurs on or near the airport. A WHA, conducted by a qualified airport wildlife biologist (AC 150/5200-36, Appendix C), must be conducted if— 14 CFR 139.337 (b) (1). An air carrier aircraft experiences a multiple wildlife strike; Aircraft strikes more than one animal (geese, starlings, bats, deer, coyotes, etc.). 14 CFR 139.337 (b) (2). An air carrier aircraft experiences substantial damage from striking wildlife. As used in this paragraph, substantial damage means damage or structural failure incurred by an aircraft that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component; The definition of substantial damage is taken directly from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual on the International Civil Aeronautics Organization Bird Strike Information System. 14 CFR 139.337 (b) (3). An air carrier aircraft experiences an engine ingestion of wildlife; or Wildlife is ingested into a turboprop, turbofan, or turbojet engine. Engine damage does not have to result from the ingestion. 14 CFR 139.337 (b) (4). Wildlife of a size, or in numbers, capable of causing an event described in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section is observed to have access to any airport flight pattern or aircraft movement area. Airports with a standing NOTAM announcement on their automatic terminal information service (ATIS), comments in the airport/facility directory (A/FD), or comments on the 5010 warning pilots of wildlife hazards on or near the airport meet this condition. Table 5.1. Triggering events for a WHA [14 CFR 139.337 (b)].

Duration of Wildlife Hazard Assessment and Basic Survey Techniques Conducting a WHA requires the “identification of the wildlife species observed and their numbers, locations, local movements, and daily and seasonal occurrences” (14 CFR 139.337 (c) (2)). Complex situations at large airports may require a 12-month assessment so that the seasonal patterns of birds and other wildlife that use the airport and surrounding area can be properly documented. In less-complex situations, a few days may suffice to identify the majority of prob- lems and suggest possible solutions. The FAA recommends that standardized survey procedures be used to provide an objective assessment that can be repeated at later dates for comparative purposes. One objective proce- dure for assessing bird populations, based on North American Breeding Bird Survey methodol- ogy, is the establishment of standardized survey points at about a half mile apart throughout the Developing a Wildlife Control Program at General Aviation Airports 101 14 CFR 139.337 Comments 14 CFR 139.337 (c). The wildlife hazard assessment … shall be conducted by a wildlife damage management biologist … having training or experience in wildlife hazard management at airports … or working under the direct supervision of someone who meets the requirements … The WHA is to be conducted by someone having the following qualifications: Education Meets U.S. Office of Personnel Management standards for GS- 486 Wildlife Biologist. Work experience Has prepared a WHA acceptable to the FAA; Has prepared a WHMP acceptable to the FAA; or Is working under the direct supervision of someone who meets the above requirements. 14 CFR 139.337 (c) (cont.).… the wildlife hazard assessment shall contain 14 CFR 139.337 (c) (1). Analysis of the event or circumstances that prompted the study. Who, what, when, where, why of the situation prompting the WHA. 14 CFR 139.337 (c) (2). Identification of the wildlife species observed and their numbers, locations, local movements, and daily and seasonal occurrences. What wildlife species have access to the airport? What are their legal statuses, movement patterns, and seasonal patterns? Refer to Table 4.1 for a ranked listing of hazardous species. Pay particular attention to those species considered the most hazardous occurring at or near the airport. 14 CFR 139.337 (c) (3). Identification and location of features on and near the airport that attract wildlife. Wildlife are attracted to an airport because something exists at or near the airport that they desire, such as large open areas where they can loaf in relative safety; abundant food or water; and/or escape, loafing, or nesting cover. These attractants need to be identified and evaluated. 14 CFR 139.337 (c) (4). Description of the wildlife hazards to air carrier operations. This is a judgment call best made by a professional wildlife management biologist trained in dealing with airport issues. Hitting three to four swallows is much less hazardous than hitting one 12-pound Canada goose (see Table 4.1). 14 CFR 139.337 (c) (5). Recommended actions for reducing identified wildlife hazards to air carrier operations. The biologist preparing the WHA must provide prioritized recommendations for mitigating the attractants for hazardous wildlife identified in (c) (3). Table 5.2. Contents of a WHA [14 CFR 139.337 (c)].

AOA. (Ten to 20 survey points are generally recommended, depending on the size of the air- port.) Assigning each bird or bird flock observed during a point count to a grid location can be useful in further refining spatial distributions of birds at the airport. Additional survey points may be established in nearby off-airport areas (such as a taxicab lot, golf course, or city park) suspected of attracting hazardous birds that move across the AOA. Standardized counts of birds should be made at each of these survey points at least twice monthly. In addition, specialized sur- veys may be needed as part of the overall assessment to document large to midsized mammals such as deer or jackrabbits (from a vehicle using a spotlight or night vision equipment), and small mammals such as voles and mice (snap traps) at the airport. These specialized mammal surveys should be conducted at least twice during a 12-month WHA. Wildlife Hazard Management Plans The following applies to certificated airports, not to GA airports. However, GA airport managers may find this information helpful. There are many advantages to developing a WHMP. In particular, it allows the airport manager to develop and set priorities, set bench- 102 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports To ensure accuracy and to get a complete picture of seasonally abundant species, wildlife hazard assessments should last at least 12 months. (Photo courtesy S. Hillebrand, U.S. FWS National Digital Library)

marks, plan budgetary needs, and help justify requests for additional funding. Also, having a WHMP in place would help defend against legal action should a damaging strike occur. A well-developed and well-implemented plan shows that positive actions are being taken to cor- rect hazardous situations. Requirement for Wildlife Hazard Management Plans The WHA is used to determine if a WHMP is needed. In addition to the information in the WHA, the airport manager should consider: • The aeronautical activity at the airport, • The actions recommended in the WHA to reduce the wildlife hazard, • The views of the airport manager and airport users, and • Any other known factors relating to the wildlife hazard. At a minimum, it is recommended that the airport manager develop and implement a plan to deal with any hazardous wildlife attractants or situations identified in the WHA. As part of the process of preparing the WHMP, contact the local U.S. FWS Ecological Services Field Office and request information about the presence of federally listed or proposed endan- gered or threatened species or designated or proposed critical habitat at or near the airport. If federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or designated or proposed critical habitat are present, the airport operator must prepare a biological assessment (50 CFR 402.13) assessing the impacts of the WHMP on these species or habitats. Airport managers may request that the wildlife biologist who prepared the WHA assist with the preparation of the WHMP and review the finished plan. However, only the airport operator can commit airport resources (time, money, and personnel), and the ultimate responsibility for the development and implementation of the plan rests with the airport operator. Developing a Wildlife Control Program at General Aviation Airports 103 The presence of a threatened or endangered species at an airport, such as this nesting California least tern, would consti- tute extraordinary circumstances and require preparation of either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement before the WHMP could receive FAA approval. (Photo courtesy USDA)

Necessary Elements of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan The goal of an airport’s WHMP is to minimize the risk to aviation safety, airport structures or equipment, or human health posed by populations of hazardous wildlife at and around the airport. The WHMP must accomplish the following: • Identify personnel responsible for implementing each phase of the plan, • Identify and provide information on attractants for hazardous wildlife at or near the airport, • Identify appropriate wildlife management techniques to minimize the wildlife hazard, • Prioritize appropriate management measures, • Recommend necessary equipment and supplies, • Identify training requirements for the airport personnel who will implement the WHMP, and • Identify when and how the plan will be reviewed and updated. At large GA airports it may be helpful for the airport manager to appoint a wildlife hazards working group that periodically reviews the airport’s WHMP and the plan’s implementation to make recommendations for further refinements or modifications. 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (1–7) provides specific guidance as to what facts must be addressed in a WHMP. Table 5.3 details how the requirements of Part 139.337 (f) (1–7) and 139.337 (g) are to be addressed in an FAA-approved WHMP. 104 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Note: This material is presented as a guide or starting point for GA airport managers. Depending on state regulations, GA airports may not have to meet all of the requirements. Equipment Certain basic equipment, such as pyrotechnics, distress calls, and sometimes firearms, is required to adequately control hazardous wildlife at or near an airport. The equipment needed will depend on the species involved, the size of the airport, and the number of personnel used. Appendix D presents a suggested list of equipment that a small- to medium-sized airport should have on hand to deal with hazardous wildlife problems. Wildlife deterrent devices can be broadly divided into visual, acoustic, and lethal categories. These can be further subdivided into portable and static systems. The levels of sophistication, and therefore cost, are variable and include the simple scarecrow (static visual), complex radio- controlled sound generators (static acoustic), pyrotechnics and vehicle-mounted distress call apparatuses (mobile acoustic), handheld lasers (mobile visual), traps (static lethal), and guns (mobile lethal). The choice of system or systems to be used will depend on cost, legal and logis- tical constraints, and the species being controlled. Some of the wildlife control devices available to airports have not undergone a rigorous sci- entific evaluation of their effectiveness. It is not possible, therefore, to recommend particular devices for wildlife control at every airport.

Developing a Wildlife Control Program at General Aviation Airports 105 14 CFR 139.337 Comments 14 CFR 139.337 (f). The wildlife hazard management plan shall include at least the following: 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (1). A list of the individuals having authority and responsibility for implementing each aspect of the plan. Assign or delegate specific responsibilities for specific sections of the WHMP to various airport departments and related agencies, such as: Airport director Operations Maintenance Security Planning Finance Wildlife coordinator Wildlife hazards working group Local law enforcement authorities (that might provide wildlife law enforcement and other support) including: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State wildlife agency City police County sheriff 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (2). A list prioritizing the following actions identified in the wildlife hazard assessment and target dates for their initiation and completion: Provide a prioritized list of problem wildlife populations and wildlife attractants (food, cover, and water) identified in the WHA, proposed mitigation actions, and target starting and completion dates. A list of completed wildlife population management projects and habitat modification projects designed to reduce the wildlife strike potential can be included to provide a history of work already accomplished. It is helpful to group attractants by areas and ownership. Airport property AOA Within 2 miles of AOA Airport structures Non-airport property Within 2 miles of AOA Within 5 miles of AOA Table 5.3. Contents of a WHMP [14 CFR 139.337 (f) (1–7) and 139.337 (g)]. (continued on next page)

106 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports 14 CFR 139.337 Comments 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (2) (i). Wildlife population management; Address species-specific population management plans (such as deer, gulls, geese, and coyotes): Habitat modification Resource protection Repelling/exclusion Removal Chapter 3 provides a discussion of the various wildlife control methods. 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (2) (ii). Habitat modification; and Food/prey management: Rodents Earthworms Insects Grain/seeds Garbage (handling, storage) Handouts (feeding wildlife) Vegetation management: AOA vegetation Drainage ditch vegetation Landscaping Agriculture Water management: Permanent water Wetlands Canals/ditches/streams Holding ponds Sewage (glycol) treatment ponds Other water areas Ephemeral water Runways, taxiways, aprons Other wet areas Airport buildings: Airfield structures Abandoned structures Terminal Airport construction 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (2) (ii) (cont.). [and] land use changes. Eliminate activities at or near the airport such as agriculture, surface mining, urban development, and creation of off-airport storm water management systems. Table 5.3. (Continued).

Developing a Wildlife Control Program at General Aviation Airports 107 14 CFR 139.337 Comments 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (3). Requirements for and, where applicable, copies of local, state, and federal wildlife control permits. Certain species of wildlife may be protected at all levels of government— local, state, and federal—or may not be protected at all, depending on the location and species. Address the specific species involved and their legal statuses in this section. Describe the wildlife management permitting requirements and procedures for all levels of government having jurisdiction, for example. Federal: 50 CFR, Parts 1 to 199 State: fish and game code (or equivalent) City, county ordinances If pesticides are to be used, the following are also needed: Pesticide use regulations Federal: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act State regulations (varies by state) Pesticide use licensing requirements Summaries are generally adequate. It is not necessary to quote chapter and verse of federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (4). Identification of resources that the certificate holder will provide to implement the plan. Provide information identifying what resources the airport will supply in terms of Personnel Time Equipment (for example, radios, vehicles, guns, traps, propane cannons) Supplies (for example, propane, shot gun ammunition, and pyrotechnics) Pesticides (restricted and nonrestricted use) Application equipment Sources for equipment and supplies Table 5.3. (Continued). (continued on next page)

108 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports 14 CFR 139.337 Comments 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (5). Procedures to be followed during air carrier operations that at a minimum include 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (5) (i). Designation of personnel responsible for implementing the procedures; Who, when, what circumstances: Wildlife control personnel Wildlife coordinator Operations dept. Maintenance dept. Security dept. Air traffic control 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (5) (ii). Provisions to conduct physical inspections of the aircraft movement areas and other areas critical to successfully manage known wildlife hazards before air carrier operations begin; Who, when, how, what circumstances: Sweeps of runway and taxiway Monitoring the AOA and other areas attractive to wildlife 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (5) (iii). Wildlife hazard control measures; and Who, what circumstances, when, and how are wildlife control personnel contacted? What methods are to be used to Repel Capture Kill 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (5) (iv). Ways to communicate effectively between personnel conducting wildlife control or observing wildlife hazards and the air traffic control tower. Training in communication procedures Equipment needed, such as radios, cellular phones, and lights 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (6). Procedures to review and evaluate the wildlife hazard management plan annually or following an event described in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, including: At a minimum, hold annual meetings, or after an event described in 139.337(a) (1– 3) meet with representatives from all airport departments involved in wildlife hazard management efforts and the qualified airport wildlife biologist (AC 150/5200-36, Appendix C) who did the original WHA. 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (6) (i). The plan’s effectiveness in dealing with known wildlife hazards on and in the airport’s vicinity, and Input from all airport departments, air traffic control, and the wildlife biologist as to effectiveness of the plan. Good records are required for evaluating the effectiveness of a program (see Chapter 6). 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (6) (ii). Aspects of the wildlife hazards described in the wildlife hazard assessment that should be reevaluated. For example Number of times wildlife seen on AOA. Requests for wildlife dispersal from air traffic control, pilots, or others. Increased number of strikes. Table 5.3. (Continued).

Portable Equipment Portable equipment used by airport personnel at the airport offers the best control, pro- vided the personnel involved are properly trained and motivated. Wildlife perceive pyrotech- nics or vehicle-mounted distress call generators as direct threats. Perceived threats are variable in time and location, thus increasing their effectiveness. This variability is not possible with static systems. Consistent with relevant wildlife take laws and regulations and controls on the use of firearms, wildlife control personnel might need firearms to remove wildlife that cannot be dispersed by nonlethal means. When using firearms, wildlife control personnel must be properly trained, have the proper firearms and ammunition, and have the necessary federal and state permits. There is some debate about the need for lethal control in airport wildlife management. How- ever, most experts agree that nonlethal pyrotechnics and other devices must occasionally be rein- forced with lethal control to maintain their effectiveness. The occasional use of lethal control reduces wildlife habituation to nonlethal control devices and allows selective removal of any wildlife failing to respond to nonlethal dispersal techniques. Developing a Wildlife Control Program at General Aviation Airports 109 14 CFR 139.337 Comments 14 CFR 139.337 (f) (7). A training program conducted by a qualified wildlife damage management biologist to provide airport personnel with the knowledge and skills needed to successfully carry out the wildlife hazard management plan required by paragraph (d) of this section. Training and/or certification for Wildlife control personnel Other airport personnel Pesticide user (see Chapter 7) 14 CFR 139.337 (g). FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for wildlife hazard management at airports that are acceptable to the administrator. AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports Table 5.3. (Continued). Safe and effective use of pyrotechnics requires training and experience. [Photos J. Metcalf, Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA)]

Static Devices Static wildlife scaring devices, such as gas cannons or other sound generators, lose their effec- tiveness quickly. Some of the more sophisticated devices that produce various sounds in random or preprogrammed order can delay habituation. Static devices are best for short-term use over a limited area and should be used with portable equipment already described. Trained Predators (Raptors and Dogs) Trained raptors and dogs can be effective in dispersing some species of wildlife in certain sit- uations. Raptors and dogs are only one tool among many. They are not a panacea. The success- ful use of raptors and dogs requires a large investment in training for the animals and their handlers. This training is essential to ensure that the animals themselves do not become a strike risk and to maximize their deterrent value. Do not underestimate the time and cost involved in incorporating raptors or dogs into a wildlife control program. The use of trained predators alone is not an acceptable substitute for the use of other wildlife management techniques. Logging Wildlife Management Activities Many aircraft owners and their insurance companies are taking legal action against airport managers and regulators to recover the costs of wildlife strike damage. It is important that who- ever is responsible for airport wildlife control record all wildlife control actions taken. If an inci- dent occurs, these records can help prove that a satisfactory wildlife control program was in place and that the program was functioning properly. Data gathered as part of a wildlife control pro- gram is also important in assessing the effectiveness of control actions taken. There are several different methods for recording data—everything from simple paper records to sophisticated devices based on pocket PC technology. The latter save time and effort, especially when enter- ing the data onto a computer for further analysis. Regardless of the recording methods used, keep a detailed and comprehensive record of all wildlife control activities. Summarize these records at least every 12 consecutive months. This will help prove the airport is following its own poli- cies and procedures. 110 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Static devices lose their effectiveness very quickly. Once the wildlife learns that the devices are harmless, they will completely ignore them. (Photos E. Cleary)

Wildlife Strike Reporting All wildlife management programs must be monitored to see if they are working effectively and whether they need to be adjusted, extended, or improved. The only effective way to do this is by collating wildlife strike data for the airport concerned. Other measures, such as counting the wildlife at the airport, provide useful added information but are not a direct measure of the strike risk at the airport. Report all strikes, whether or not they cause damage to the aircraft and regardless of the wildlife species involved. Unless the species struck at the airport are known, management efforts cannot be directed correctly. Do not penalize airport or aircraft operators for reporting wildlife strikes. Even though strikes from small species such as swallows or sparrow-sized birds are unlikely to cause damage, encourage airport personnel or aircraft owners to report them. Developing a Wildlife Control Program at General Aviation Airports 111 The use of trained predators should be considered as one more tool in the toolbox, not as a panacea. Due to the cost of falconry, only large, well-funded airports may be able to afford it. (Photo J. Metcalf, GOAA) Note: Never use the total number of strikes at an airport as a measure of strike risk or the performance of the wildlife control specialists. The number of reported strikes should increase when a wildlife hazard control program is started and airport personnel become aware of the situation and the need to report strikes. The increase in reported strikes may be an artifact of education and effort, not the result of an increase in the number of strikes. The main risk arises from strikes with larger species and smaller species that form large flocks (for example, European starlings). Use a risk assessment that combines strike frequency with likely severity to assess the risk. Remember, a risk assessment cannot work effectively unless all strikes are reported.

112 C H A P T E R 6 Introduction The following material is presented with the largest, busiest GA airports in mind. These air- ports often face many of the same hazardous wildlife problems as certificated airports. Such air- ports would do well to imitate the wildlife hazard program recordkeeping and evaluation procedures recommended for certificated airports. Medium to small GA airports may not need such a complex recordkeeping system, and airport operators at these smaller airports can take this material and adapt it to their needs. Wildlife populations at and in the vicinity of airports are constantly changing in response to changes in land use, state and federal management policies, and environmental factors. In addi- tion, wildlife may adapt or habituate to control strategies that were once effective, or they may develop new behavioral or feeding patterns at or near the airport. New wildlife control technolo- gies may become available, or established products or techniques may be withdrawn or banned. Finally, there could be changes in wildlife control and management personnel at an airport. Once Evaluating Wildlife Hazard Management Programs at General Aviation Airports On January 17, 2009, a Baptist Health MedFlight departed Memphis en route back to Little Rock without a patient. MedFlight struck a flock of birds around the Forrest City area and made an emergency landing. The MedFlight crews do not wear helmets, and crew members were lucky the pilot’s vision remained intact to land the aircraft. (Photo courtesy USDA)

Evaluating Wildlife Hazard Management Programs at General Aviation Airports 113 a WHMP is in place, develop a process to evaluate the program at least annually. This chapter outlines a means of conducting such evaluations. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Without accurate records and proper program evaluations, it is difficult to justify and defend certain management actions, such as wildlife removal, or to defend the airport during litigation in the aftermath of a damaging wildlife strike. Without consistently maintained records of wildlife activity, wildlife strikes, and wildlife management actions, the proper evaluation of a program is impossible. Without evaluation, no assessment of the effectiveness of a program can be made. Hazard Assessments, Plans, and Studies As will be discussed in Chapter 7, to facilitate access and reduce losses, keep all reference books, such as wildlife field guides, videos, posters, and other training and educational materi- als, in a specific location. For ready reference have copies of WHAs, wildlife hazard management programs, and other relevant wildlife studies conducted at the airport available. Ideally, locate the wildlife library at the site where information on wildlife control activities and wildlife strikes is entered into logs, files, and databases. Daily Log of Wildlife Control Activities Maintain a daily log of wildlife activity and management actions; important factors to record include: • Date, time, and location at airport where wildlife is observed, • Species of wildlife and approximate numbers, and • Control actions taken and response of wildlife. Record this information on a standard form (see Table 6.1 for an example of a daily log form) that can be used by wildlife control personnel at the site where the activity takes place. If a form is not available, record the information in a logbook kept at the operations base. Airport managers Bird surveys should be conducted at least monthly. The surveys should be random in time and pattern to minimize sampling errors. (Photo E. Cleary)

114 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports are encouraged to copy any of the tables or forms in this guidebook and adapt the forms for their particular airports and needs. The use of a standardized form or recording format, such as that presented in Table 6.1, is strongly recommended. The information recorded will be most useful if it is summarized into monthly and annual statistics (see Table 6.3). Use of a standardized format allows this summa- rization to be easily done. The use of computerized database systems customized to provide sum- maries of wildlife control activities is recommended. Log of Wildlife Strikes Maintaining a consistent record of wildlife strikes is essential for defining the wildlife hazard level for an airport and for evaluating the airport’s wildlife hazard management program. In addition to maintaining these strike records for internal use at the airport, electronically submit (preferred method, http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/wildlife/strikenew.aspx) or mail (using FAA Form 5200-7, Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report—see Appendix F) strike reports to the FAA. The FAA will incorporate the information into the FAA National Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database (http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov). A wildlife strike has occurred when: 1. A pilot reports striking one or more birds or other wildlife; 2. Aircraft maintenance personnel identify aircraft damage as having been caused by a wildlife strike; 3. Personnel on the ground report seeing an aircraft strike one or more birds or other wildlife; 4. The animal’s presence at the airport had a significant negative effect on a flight (such as aborted takeoff or landing, high-speed emergency stop, or aircraft leaving pavement area to avoid collision with animal); or 5. Bird or other wildlife remains are found within 200 ft of the centerline of a runway, unless another reason for the animal’s death is identified. In the United States, there is no regulatory requirement to report a wildlife aircraft strike. How- ever, airport personnel, pilots, and ATC tower personnel are strongly encouraged to report all wildlife strikes. Without an accurate record of wildlife strikes, it is impossible to evaluate the This is the second damaging bird strike this Rockwell Commander has suffered in less than 10 years. The bird was struck at 1,500 AGL and at about 130 kts. (Photo courtesy B. Mackinnon, Transport Canada)

potential hazard at an airport or evaluate the effectiveness of a control program. Record each strike event electronically at http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov or on FAA Form 5200-7, Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report (see Appendix F). Mail photocopies of the paper form to the FAA at: Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-310 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 When filling out Form 5200-7, include as much of the information requested as is available. Typically, not all information requested on the form will be available or known, but the report is valuable even if some information is missing. For Category 5 strikes, include a notation that a carcass was found but no strike was reported. For all strike reports, make every effort to have the wildlife correctly identified by species. Freeze specimens that cannot be readily identified in a labeled bag until a local wildlife expert can be consulted. If only feather remains are available, mail them and a completed copy of FAA form 5200-7 Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report to the Smithsonian’s Feather Identification Laboratory for identification. AC 150/5200-32, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes, provides instructions on submitting bird strike remains for identification. There is no charge for this identification service. Please include a copy of the strike report or other relevant information along with the bird remains to assist the feather experts in identification. Material sent via Express Mail Service: Material sent via U.S. Postal Service: Feather Identification Laboratory Feather Identification Laboratory Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian Institution, Division of Birds NHB, E610, MRC 116 PO Box 37012 10th & Constitution Ave, NW NHB, E610, MRC 116 Washington, DC 20560-0116 Washington, DC 20013-7012 (Identify as “safety investigation material”) (Not recommended for priority cases) Phone# 202-633-0787 or 202-633-0791 Whenever possible, photograph all bird strike damage. This Diamond 20 struck a tundra swan at 2,000 ft AGL, 120 kts, and sustained over $32,000 in damage. (Photo courtesy of FAA) Evaluating Wildlife Hazard Management Programs at General Aviation Airports 115

Records of Significant Management Actions Taken In addition to maintaining a daily log of wildlife control activities and wildlife strikes, it is important to keep records of other preventative management actions that may not be part of the daily routine of wildlife control. Examples of such actions could be installing or repairing fenc- ing, thinning trees, clearing construction debris, applying pesticides or repellents, conducting grass height management, installing netting in hangars or wires over ponds, and regrading pave- ment or grass areas to eliminate standing water. Activities such as writing letters to catering ser- vices about proper storage of food waste are also important management actions. Documenting these activities in some type of summary file or table can aid in determining the total cost and effectiveness of the wildlife control program. Summary Reports by Month and Year Periodically summarize information from the daily wildlife control activities log and from records of wildlife strikes to provide baseline data for analyzing and evaluating the wildlife con- trol program. A logical approach is to conduct monthly summaries that are then incorporated into an annual report. These summaries do not need to be complex but must reflect the level of activity for the common control techniques deployed. For example, monthly summaries of pyrotechnics fired, runway sweeps to clear birds, distress call deployments, birds and mammals removed (listed by species), and wildlife strikes (listed by species) would be useful (see Table 6.2). Prepare a short paragraph outlining other significant activities during the month, such as repair- ing a fence, meeting with airport tenants about wildlife issues such as feeding birds in taxi stand area, or regrading an area to remove standing water. Prepare an annual report (see Table 6.3) by combining data from the monthly reports. It is emphasized that Tables 6.2 and 6.3 are only presented as examples to provide guidance in developing a format to summarize data. A particular airport might use methods not listed in Tables 6.2 and 6.3, such as falconry, radio-controlled model airplanes, dogs, or propane cannons. The important point is that there must be an impartial, numerical documentation of wildlife control methods deployed and wildlife strikes occurring at the airport. The use of a computer database can be extremely helpful in producing these summary reports. 116 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports The hole in this fence allows feral dogs and other medium-sized mammals easy access to the airport. It is important to record both the date the hole was first found and the date it was repaired. (Photo E. Cleary)

Training Maintain and annually summarize a record of all training that wildlife control personnel have received. Include attendance at conferences, courses, and workshops (for example, firearms safety); self-study courses; and specialized on-the-job training. Evaluation of Wildlife Hazard Management Programs Wildlife hazard management programs should be reviewed at least annually or following an event that would normally trigger a WHA. The review should include the program’s effective- ness in dealing with known wildlife hazards at and in the vicinity of the airport, and aspects of the wildlife hazards described in the WHA that should be reevaluated. The qualified airport wildlife biologist who helped prepare the program and a subgroup from the airport’s wildlife hazard working group should conduct this review. Appendix E describes a simple system (modified from Seubert 1994) for assessing a WHMP at an airport. Five assessment categories are used to indicate the adequacy of a wildlife hazard control program and how well the program is being implemented: Category 1. Management functions related to wildlife hazards at or in the vicinity of the airport. Category 2. Bird control at or in the vicinity of the airport. Category 3. Mammal control at or in the vicinity of the airport. Category 4. Management of habitat and food sources on airport property related to wildlife hazards. Category 5. Land uses and food sources off of the airport potentially related to wildlife haz- ards at the airport. Within categories 1 to 4 (activities at the airport), a series of elements are listed that are eval- uated as either “Satisfactory,” “Unsatisfactory,” “Needs Improvement,” or “Not Applicable.” For Evaluating Wildlife Hazard Management Programs at General Aviation Airports 117 This helicopter was traveling at 80 MPH when it struck a bald eagle at 2,000 ft AGL. The eagle penetrated the windshield, striking a passenger in the chest. (Photo C. Cooper, Humming- bird Helicopters)

category 5 (off-airport attractants), the elements are scored on a scale of 0 (not present) to 3 (site creates significant wildlife hazard for airport; action should be taken). Those elements deemed “Unsatisfactory” or “Needs Improvement” (in categories 1 to 4) or that are scored 2 or 3 (in cat- egory 5) are then commented on in a summary form. The elements listed within each category are not intended to cover every possibility at every airport, and the elements can be modified or expanded to meet situations unique to an airport. Airport Wildlife Hazards Working Group Function Wildlife hazard management at an airport often requires communication, cooperation, and coordination among various groups at the airport and with various local, state, and federal agen- cies and private entities. For many large GA airports, the establishment of an airport wildlife haz- ards working group (AWHWG) will greatly facilitate this communication, cooperation, and coordination. Medium to small GA airports with few staff may not need such a complex organ- ization to deal with wildlife problems. Membership Include in the AWHWG a representative from each of the key groups and agencies that have a significant involvement or interest in wildlife issues at the airport. AWHWGs could include representatives from the airport advisory board and the local office of the National Audubon Society, any fixed base operators at the airport, the airport manager, and representatives from the city or county council. If a WHA was done, it may also be helpful to have the wildlife biolo- gist who conducted the WHA in the AWHWG. Also, include representatives from any facility near the airport that significantly attracts wildlife (such as a landfill or wildlife refuge). In general, do not exceed 10 people in the core AWHWG. This will keep meetings from becom- ing unwieldy. In addition to regular members, invite to the meetings, as appropriate, people with 118 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports An airport wildlife hazard working group (AWHWG) should be made up of representatives from the airport, pilots, fixed base operators, wildlife biologists, and local government. (Photo courtesy FAA)

specialized knowledge, interest, or concerns. Typically, someone from airport management chairs the AWHWG. Minutes of each meeting should be kept and distributed to all members. Summary and Conclusions Periodic evaluations of an airport’s WHMP and the activities undertaken to implement the program are critical because of the dynamic nature of wildlife hazards and control technologies. The foundation for these evaluations is the maintenance of consistent records of wildlife control Evaluating Wildlife Hazard Management Programs at General Aviation Airports 119 Here representatives from the AWHWG are reviewing proposed changes to the airport’s layout plan to ensure compatibility with goals for management of hazardous wildlife. (Photo courtesy FAA) One of the goals of the AWHWG is to work with state and federal wildlife management agencies to ensure that all practical steps are taken to prevent hazardous wildlife from being attracted to the airport. (Photo J. Metcalf, GOAA)

activities and wildlife strikes. The use of standardized formats for keeping these records, such as those presented in Tables 6.1 to 6.3, permits easy compilation of events and activities into monthly and annual statistical and narrative summaries. Once these summaries are available, objective examinations and comparisons can be made of trends in strikes, wildlife activities, con- trol methods deployed, and other factors. An objective, standardized format for assessing a WHMP and its implementation is presented in Appendix E. This format allows an outside biologist or evaluation group to systematically review the actions being taken and make recommendations in areas where improvements are needed. The availability of summary statistics such as those provided through recordkeeping is essential for this assessment. Finally, the establishment of an AWHWG provides an excellent means of improving commu- nication, coordination, and cooperation among the diverse groups involved in wildlife hazard management at an airport. The AWHWG also can provide an important forum for reviewing, evaluating, and improving an airport’s WHMP. The following tables can be downloaded and printed from the TRB website by accessing the overall report. To find this report, go to www.trb.org and search for “ACRP Report 32.” 120 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Airport: Month: Year: Wildlife Date Time Location(Grid) Species No. Control Method Results/Comments Initials Table 6.1. Example of a daily log of wildlife control activities.

Evaluating Wildlife Hazard Management Programs at General Aviation Airports 121 Airport: Month: Year: Control Activity1 This Month Same Month Last Year Comments (List wildlife dispersed or removed by species and method.) No. of pyrotechnics fired No. of times distress calls deployed No. of runway sweeps to clear birds No. of wildlife removed Miles driven by wildlife patrol No. of reported strikes No. of reported strikes with damage No. of carcasses found (no strike reported) Summary of other wildlife control activities: 1 Modify list as appropriate. Table 6.2. Example of a form to provide monthly summary of wildlife control activities.

122 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Airport: Year: Number of: Month Pyro- technics Fired Times Distress Calls Deployed Runway Sweeps to Clear Birds Wildlife Dispersed Wildlife Removed1 Miles Driven by Wildlife Patrol Reported Strikes2 Reported Strikes with Damage Carcasses Found (No Strike Reported)2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 1 Provide separate list by species and method. 2 Provide separate list by species. Table 6.3. Example of a form to provide annual summary of wildlife control activities derived from monthly reports (Table 6.2). Modify each airport’s form to reflect the common control activities undertaken during the year. The data may also be presented graphically.

Introduction The management of wildlife is a complex endeavor that often attracts public interest. Once an assessment of hazards has been completed and a wildlife hazard control program has been devel- oped, the program must be implemented by well-trained and knowledgeable individuals if it is to be successful in reducing wildlife strikes and to be accepted by the public. 123 C H A P T E R 7 Wildlife Hazard Management Training for General Aviation Airport Personnel This Learjet struck a deer while landing at Troy, Alabama. The aircraft went off the runway and was destroyed by fire. The pilot and copilot escaped. One month later, a second aircraft struck another deer. The airport did not have a perimeter fence installed at the time of the two accidents. (Photo courtesy of USDA.)

Depending on the size of an airport and the level of wildlife hazard, the wildlife hazard con- trol program may be implemented by a single airport employee undertaking wildlife control activities on an occasional “as needed” basis or by a full-time wildlife biologist with a staff of operations personnel providing continuous bird patrols. Many of the smaller GA airports fall into the first category, while some of the larger GA airports may fall into the latter. At many GA airports the personnel involved in these control activities, hereafter referred to as wildlife control personnel (WCP), probably do not have any formal education in wildlife biol- ogy. However, all WCP must have sufficient training to be knowledgeable in the basic principles of wildlife management and in the identification, behavior, general life history, and legal statuses of the hazardous species in the area. WCP also must be trained in the safe and proper use of var- ious control strategies and techniques outlined in the wildlife hazard control program. Finally, an awareness of endangered and threatened wildlife species that might visit or reside at the air- port is critical. Training GA airport managers or administrators must ensure that WCP have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to successfully carry out the work of controlling hazardous wildlife. The fol- lowing material presents a synopsis of the recommended areas of training that WCP must have to successfully implement control activities at GA airports. It is emphasized that once a program is in place, in addition to the training provided to WCP, there should be periodic oversight and review of the program and its implementation by a professional biologist trained in wildlife dam- age control. Bird Identification To become an expert in field identification of all bird species at a location requires many years of training and practice. There are over 600 species of birds that reside in or migrate through the United States. Many of these species, such as gulls, have quite different plumage patterns and bill colors as sub-adults (year of hatching up to 3 years in some species) than as adults. Some birds, 124 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Training from recognized experts should include classroom instruction, fieldwork, and attendance at conferences, such as the Bird Strike Committee–USA/Canada. (Photo C. Steves, FAA)

such as laughing gulls, European starlings, and black-bellied plovers, have different summer and winter plumage patterns and bill colors. In other species, such as northern harriers and red- winged blackbirds, males and females appear quite different. Some species are present in an area all year; others are present only in migration (spring and fall), and others are present only in win- ter or in summer. All species have unique vocalizations, behaviors, and habitat preferences that are useful in field identification. WCP require basic training so that they can identify, in all plumages, commonly seen hazardous birds, as well as those rarer species that are considered haz- ardous when present or are of concern because of their status as endangered or threatened species. Figure 7.1 shows the relative hazard rankings for the 24 wildlife groups or species pos- ing the greatest hazard to fixed-wing aircraft having one or two engines and weighing less than 59,525 lbs (27,000 kg). Refer to Chapter 4 for the discussion of how the various hazardous wildlife species were ranked. A good pair of at least 10×40 binoculars is essential for detailed, close-up observations that are sometimes necessary for identification as well as for the detection of birds or other wildlife at a distance. Provide WCP with a quality pair of binoculars and train them in their use. Equip all WCP with their own bird identification field guides, to be carried in the vehicle while on patrol. There are a number of excellent field guides available from bookstores, some of which are listed at the end of this chapter. There are also bird identification guides available on com- pact discs that provide useful life history information and vocalizations. As a learning aid, encourage WCP to make annotations regarding behavior or appearance next to identified birds in their field guides. Mammal Identification Unlike birds, there are typically only a few mammal species of importance at an airport. Train WCP to identify, not only by sight but also by signs, tracks, burrows, and fecal material, the com- mon large and midsized mammals (for example, deer, raccoons, woodchucks, and coyotes) that live around the airport. Train WCP to identify signs (such as trails in grass and burrows) indica- tive of a population eruption of field rodents such as voles, deer mice, or rats. A survey by a biol- ogist using snap traps might be necessary to identify the species and relative abundance of rodents occupying various airport habitats. In addition, rodent species can be identified by Wildlife Hazard Management Training for General Aviation Airport Personnel 125 Many species of birds look different in winter and summer. Left: Adult laughing gulls in winter plumage. Right: Adult laughing gull in summer breeding plumage. (Photos, left: E. Cleary; right: courtesy D. Dewhurst, U.S. FWS National Digital Library)

examination of skull remains in pellets (boluses) regurgitated by hawks and owls. These pellets are often found on the ground beneath perching sites used by raptors. Citations for field guides covering mammals and their tracks throughout the United States are provided in the “Field Guides” section of the bibliography. In addition, there are many state and regional field guides for identifying mammals and their signs. A good field guide to mammals is a necessary part of any airport’s wildlife hazard control library. Basic Life Histories and Behavior of Common Species In addition to learning to identify the hazardous birds and mammals at the airport, WCP should have some understanding of the biology and behavior of these species. This information will make the job of wildlife hazard management more interesting and be useful in anticipating problems and deploying control measures more effectively. The most useful information will come from careful observation of what the birds and mammals are doing on the airport grounds. There are a number of questions WCP should ask and try to answer when evaluating and iden- tifying wildlife hazards: • At what time of year and time of day are the hazardous birds present at the airport? • In which habitats and at what time of year do locally breeding bird species nest? • When are young fledged from nests? • What are the daily movement patterns between roosting, feeding, and loafing areas in relation to the airport? • What are the feeding behaviors and food preferences of each species at the airport? • Which habitats does each species prefer? 126 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 D ee r G u l ls / Te r n s G e e s e D uc ks Vu ltu re s Ha wk s Ca ni ne s Do ve s He r o ns /C r a ne s Bl ac kb ir d s / St a r lin gs Ea gl e/ O sp r e y Al ba t ro ss / P el ica ns /C or m or an t s Eg re ts Cr ow s O w l s Th ru sh es G a llin ac eo us Sh or eb ird s Fo xe s Sp ar ro w lik e M e a do wl ar k s Sw al lo ws Pe rc hi ng B i rd s La r g e r o de nt s/ la go m or ph s Ba ts Species groups R el at iv e ha za rd ra n ki n gs Figure 7.1. Relative hazard ranking of various wildlife species to GA aircraft. The wildlife species listed are ranked by the relative “severity of outcome” if they are involved in a strike. Deer, the species having the greatest potential to cause aircraft damage, are ranked highest (100); all other species are ranked relative to deer. Raptors and vultures are about half as hazardous as deer, and bats are about one-tenth as hazardous.

Wildlife Hazard Management Training for General Aviation Airport Personnel 127 Grass areas at airports often contain several species of small mammals that are an attractive food for hawks, owls, herons, and egrets. Vagrant shrews, deer mice, gray-tailed voles, and Townsend’s voles (left to right) were all captured during one night of trapping at a western U.S. airport in September 2003. (Photo R. Dolbeer) Pyrotechnics are the most commonly used wildlife repellent at airports. They can cause serious injuries or start fires if misused. Airport personnel who will be using pyrotechnics should receive professional training in their use and safety. (Photo E. Cleary) • How does weather influence the presence and behavior of various species at the airport? • How does each species react to approaching aircraft and to various repellent devices? By being observant and noting the behavior of these hazardous species, WCP can gain useful insights that will lead to more effective habitat management or repellent strategies. Most bird and mammal field guides provide information on geographic range, feeding habits, and habitat preferences for each species. Ehrlich et al. (1988), Alsop (2001), and Sibley (2009) provide concise summaries of life history information (nesting, feeding, and habitat preferences)

for most birds in North America. Chapter 1 contains several fact sheets covering control options, legal statuses, and basic life histories for some of the most hazardous birds and mammal species. Such books and fact sheets provide an excellent starting point for knowledge about a species. Wildlife and Environmental Laws and Regulations As will be discussed in Chapter 8, there is a complexity of federal and state laws protecting wildlife and regulating the issuance of permits to take (capture or kill) individuals causing prob- lems. In addition, environmental laws and regulations regarding pesticide applications, drainage of wetlands, and endangered species must be considered in implementing wildlife hazard control programs. All WCP should have a basic understanding of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), whereby almost all native migratory birds are protected regardless of their abundance. WCP must understand that federal and often state permits must be issued before protected species can be taken at an airport. WCP must know that wild mammals are regulated at the state level, which may require permits for activities involving removal (killing or trapping/relocating). Nonnative birds, such as rock pigeons (feral pigeons), house sparrows, and starlings, and gallinaceous game birds, such as turkeys, grouse, and pheasants, are not protected by the MBTA but often have state protection. WCP involved in taking any wildlife species must have a clear understanding of which species have no legal protection and, for all others, the species and numbers allowed to be taken under permits issued. Permits also will list the methods of removal allowed and acceptable procedures for disposing of removed wildlife. Detailed records of wildlife taken under permit must be maintained. Wildlife Control Techniques Chapter 3 provides a brief description of most wildlife control techniques used at airports. WCP will need training to deploy these techniques safely and effectively. Firearms It is critical that only personnel trained in the use of firearms, authorized under a depredation permit, and knowledgeable in field identification of the target species and similar-looking non- 128 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports At some airports reptiles such as this green iguana can cause more problems than mammals or birds. The iguana is being kept off the runway by an iguana-resistant fence. (Photo B. Constentine)

target species be allowed to use firearms on airport grounds. Skill, experience, and the proper equipment are needed to be safe and to maximize the effectiveness of a shooting program, whether it is to remove specific problem animals or to kill one or more individuals to reinforce repellent techniques. All discharged shell casings are potential foreign object debris and must be picked up. Pyrotechnics Pyrotechnics can cause injury or damage if discharged incorrectly or carelessly. For example, serious injuries have occurred when pyrotechnics were accidentally discharged inside vehicles. Proper equipment (e.g., safety glasses and ear protection) and training are essential for safe use of pyrotechnics. In addition, training is needed to deploy the correct pyrotechnic for each situ- ation and wildlife species and to minimize habituation. It is critical that pyrotechnics (and other repellent devices) not be deployed in situations where the birds or mammals might be flushed into the path of departing or arriving aircraft. Pesticide Application WCP applying restricted use pesticides, applying pesticides for hire, or applying pesticides to the land of another must be certified applicators or working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, and even then they may only use pesticides covered by the certified applica- tor’s certification. Proper application equipment and safety clothing must be used. Detailed records of pesticide applications must be maintained. For information on the training requirements for becoming a certified pesticide applicator, contact the state university cooperative extension service. Distress Call Tapes, Propane Cannons, and Miscellaneous Techniques As emphasized in Chapter 3, a major problem in the use of repelling techniques or devices is habituation of the wildlife species to the threats. These techniques all require training for their proper deployment. The most critical factor for most repelling devices is that they be deployed sparingly and appropriately when the target wildlife is present and be reinforced occasionally by a real threat such as shooting. More detailed information on the use of various repelling devices is presented in Chapter 3 and Hygnstrom et al. (1994). Wildlife Hazard Management Training for General Aviation Airport Personnel 129 Propane cannons will quickly lose their effectiveness if used constantly without lethal reinforcement. (Photo J. Metcalf, GOAA)

Recordkeeping and Strike Reporting A key component of a wildlife hazard control program is developing a system to (1) document the daily activities of WCP, (2) log information about wildlife numbers and behavior at the air- port, and (3) record all wildlife aircraft strikes. This information is essential to document the effort being made by the airport in reducing wildlife hazards. The information is also extremely useful during periodic evaluations of the wildlife hazard control program and when revisions to the program are proposed. Instruct WCP on the importance of recordkeeping and train them to record this information in a standardized format. Chapter 6 provides more details about record- keeping and wildlife strike reporting. Sources of Training Wildlife Control Workshops at Airports Books, manuals, and videos can provide a starting point for building skills to manage haz- ardous wildlife at airports. However, hands-on training is essential to develop the necessary skills and confidence to successfully and safely carry out wildlife control activities. Workshops on air- port wildlife control offered by private contractors or government agencies are an excellent means of obtaining training in wildlife identification, legal issues, and the deployment of vari- ous control techniques specific for a given airport or region of the country. These workshops can be held for all WCP at a single airport or at a centralized airport with participants coming from airports throughout the state or region. Bird Strike Committee–USA Meetings Bird Strike Committee–USA (BSC–USA) holds joint meetings annually with Bird Strike Committee–Canada at an American or Canadian airport. This annual meeting provides an excellent forum to discuss the latest issues and techniques in wildlife control for airports. The meeting includes demonstrations of various wildlife control equipment and techniques con- ducted by vendors and wildlife specialists. Participation in the annual BSC–USA meetings is open to anyone interested in reducing wildlife hazards to aviation or in wildlife and environmental management at airports. Informa- 130 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Burrowing owls are attracted to prairie dog burrows at several southwestern airports. In some states, both prairie dogs and burrowing owls are protected, and the state is very reluctant to allow any lethal control of prairie dogs. (Photo E. Cleary)

tion on annual meetings as well as information on various aspects of wildlife hazard manage- ment for airports can be found at BSC–USA’s website, www.birdstrike.org. Hunter Safety and Firearms Courses Require airport personnel who will be using firearms to complete a hunter safety or firearms safety course. Local gun clubs, private contractors, and state wildlife agencies can provide infor- mation on these courses. Miscellaneous Courses and Activities Many universities and some community colleges offer courses in ornithology, principles of wildlife management, principles of wildlife damage control, or other related topics. Local Audubon Society chapters or park districts sometimes offer workshops or short courses in field identification of birds. Participation in conservation organization activities, such as Christmas Wildlife Hazard Management Training for General Aviation Airport Personnel 131 There are several private contractors that can provide wildlife control workshops for airport personnel. (Photo E. Cleary) Any airport employee who will be using firearms to help control hazardous wildlife must have training in the safe and proper use and handling of firearms. (Photo E. Cleary)

bird counts and spring migration counts, is an excellent means of building bird identification skills and developing contacts with local wildlife experts. Wildlife Hazard Management Library Establish a designated location for references such as wildlife field guides, videos, posters, and other training and educational materials. Ideally, locate this wildlife library at the site where information on wildlife control activities and wildlife strikes is entered into logs, files, and databases. Field Guides and Reference Books There are many excellent field guides and reference books for learning about wildlife. There are also many field guides for individual states and specialized books for various wildlife species or species groups. A selection of books that cover North America or large regions of the United States is listed in the “Field Guides” section of the bibliography. This list is not exhaustive nor intended as an endorsement of these books to the exclusion of others, but rather as examples of what is available. 132 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports

Introduction Wildlife management is a complex mixture of science, experience, and art, regulated and implemented by various federal, state, and local governmental agencies. Overlapping federal, state, and local regulations enforced by the various governmental organizations protect wildlife and associated wildlife habitat. This chapter provides an overview of the roles and responsibili- ties of various agencies and organizations that influence wildlife management at or near airports. Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Mission and Responsibilities The mission of the FAA is to provide a safe, secure, and efficient global aviation system that contributes to national security and the promotion of U.S. aviation. Among its other responsi- bilities, the FAA is responsible for enforcement of 14 CFR 139, Certification of Airports. The Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports has primary responsibility for this work. 133 C H A P T E R 8 Government Agencies and Regulations Impacting Wildlife Hazard Control at General Aviation Airports This Cessna 150 crash-landed in a tomato field and was damaged beyond repair after a hawk shattered the windshield during approach to a western U.S. airport on July 20, 2007. (Photo courtesy USDA)

There are two programs within the Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports that have a direct impact on wildlife hazard control at general aviation airports: (1) Airport Planning and Programs and (2) Airport Safety and Standards. Airport Planning and Programs. APP oversees the Airport Improvement Program. AIP funds are used by airports to carry out projects aimed at improving airport operations and safety. AIP funds are distributed either by direct grants to applicant airports or through block grants to various states. Certain parts of an airport’s wildlife hazard control program can be paid for with AIP funds. As a general rule, AIP funds can be used to pay for a WHA and to buy equipment necessary to implement a WHMP. AIP funds cannot be used to buy supplies or pay wages. In block grant states, airport operators wishing to apply for AIP funds should apply directly to the state department of aviation. In direct grant states, airport operators should apply to the appropriate FAA Airports Division, Regional Office. A list of FAA Regional Offices can be found in Appendix A. Airports accepting AIP funds are required to comply with all associated Grant Assurances and Advisory Circulars. Airport Safety and Standards. The Office of Airport Safety and Standards oversees the FAA’s activities relating to wildlife hazards and their associated human health and safety con- cerns. Airport Safety and Standards’ 150/5200 series Advisory Circulars and Certalerts provide further information. FAA Advisory Circulars (150/5200 Series) The FAA issues Advisory Circulars to systematically inform the aviation public of nonregula- tory material of interest. The FAA recommends that public-use airport operators implement the standards and practices contained in all applicable ACs. In general, airports that have received federal grants-in-aid assistance must use the standards presented in an AC. Airports that have not accepted federal grants-in-aid (non-obligated airports) may also find these recommenda- tions helpful. See Appendix C for copies of the current version (as of July 2009) of ACs men- 134 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Several species of birds, such as ospreys, will readily nest on parking lot light standards. (Photo courtesy USDA)

Government Agencies and Regulations Impacting Wildlife Hazard Control at General Aviation Airports 135 In a vain attempt to keep birds off his aircraft, the owner has installed a plastic owl on the propeller. Such static devices are not effective. AC150/5200-32 provides information on how to submit bird strike remains to the Smithsonian for identification. There is no charge for this service for American registered aircraft. Here a specialist at the Smithsonian is working with some bird strike remains to identify the species of bird involved in a strike. (Photo C. Dove) tioned in this guidebook. Advisory Circulars are revised on an irregular schedule. Copies of the most current 150/5200 series ACs are available online at: www.faa.gov/arp/. There are three 150/5200 series FAA ACs applicable to GA airport wildlife hazard problems. AC 150/5200-32, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes. This AC explains the importance of reporting wildlife strikes. It also examines recent improvements in the FAA’s Bird/Other Wildlife Strike reporting system, as well as how to report a wildlife strike, what happens to the wildlife strike report data, and how to access the FAA National Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database. Lastly, it discusses the FAA’s Feather Identification program.

AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports. This AC provides guidance on locating certain land uses having the potential to attract hazardous wildlife to the vicinity of public-use airports. It also provides guidance on the placement of new airport devel- opment projects (including airport construction, expansion, and renovation) pertaining to air- craft movement in the vicinity of hazardous wildlife attractants. AC 150/52000-36, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologists Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Hazards on Airports. This AC describes the qualifications for wildlife biologists who conduct WHAs for airports certificated under 14 CFR 139. In addition, it addresses the mini- mum wildlife hazard management curriculum for the initial and recurrent training of airport personnel involved in implementing a FAA-approved WHMP. FAA, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, CertAlerts Relating to Airport Wildlife Management CertAlerts provide nondirective advisory or cautionary information dealing with aviation safety to the aviation community. There are four Office of Airport Safety and Standards CertAlerts that have direct application to GA airport wildlife hazard problems. CertAlert No. 98-05, Grasses Attractive to Hazardous Wildlife. This CertAlert warns air- port operators against the use of millet and any other large-seed producing grasses or other plants attractive to hazardous wildlife for revegetation of construction sites or other disturbed areas at the airport. CertAlert No. 04-09, Relationship between FAA and USDA/WS. This CertAlert clarifies the roles of and relationship between the FAA and the USDA/Animal and Plant Health Inspec- tion Service/Wildlife Services with regard to wildlife hazards at or near airports. CertAlert No. 04-16, Deer Hazards to Aviation and Deer Fencing. In light of recent inci- dents where a Learjet landing at an airport in Alabama and a Learjet departing an airport in Ore- gon were destroyed after colliding with deer or elk, this CertAlert reminds airport operators of the importance of controlling deer and other large wild mammals on and around airfields. 136 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports The FAA recommends a minimum 10-ft chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire for deer control. This type of fencing also greatly increases airside security. (Photo A. Dickey)

CertAlert No. 06-07. Requests by State Wildlife Agencies to Facilitate and Encourage Habi- tat for State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern on Airports. This CertAlert describes procedures for responding to requests by state wildlife agen- cies to facilitate and encourage habitats for state-listed threatened and endangered species or species of special concern that may pose a threat to aviation safety and are found at airports. It does not apply to federally listed threatened and endangered species. FAA guidance on dealing with federally listed threatened and endangered species can be found in FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts – Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services Mission and Responsibilities The U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services provides federal leadership in manag- ing problems caused by wildlife. USDA/WS helps manage wildlife to reduce damage to agricul- ture, natural resources, and property; minimizes potential threats to human health and safety; and assists in the protection of threatened and endangered species. USDA/WS has the primary responsibility of responding to problems caused by migratory birds. USDA/WS can assist fed- eral, state, and local agencies, airport managers, and the aviation industry in reducing wildlife hazards at and in the vicinity of airports and airbases. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mission and Responsibilities The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is charged with a wide range of functions related to water resources. Among these is protecting navigation and safeguarding the nation’s water resources. The USACE regulatory branch administers a permit system under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. All proposed management actions involving any wetland habitat modification or excavation of fill material from or discharged into waters of the United States must be evaluated for Section 404 applicability and permit requirements. Government Agencies and Regulations Impacting Wildlife Hazard Control at General Aviation Airports 137 This Army Corps of Engineers river channel restoration project is less than 650 ft from runway centerline at a major airport. Air- port managers must work with the Corps to protect airport air- space and aviation safety. (Photo courtesy USDA)

GA airports may need to contact the USACE when planning projects such as runway expan- sion or draining of wetlands to reduce waterfowl habitat. Some of these projects requiring per- mits may also require mitigation of impacted resources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mission and Responsibilities The mission of the U.S. EPA is to safeguard the nation’s environment. EPA functions include setting and enforcing environmental standards and regulations related to air and water pollu- tion, hazardous wastes, pesticides, and toxic substances. The EPA’s mission is accomplished through partnerships with state and local governments. EPA responsibilities include pesticide registration and regulation as well as siting and construction of wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal facilities, which are permitted through state and local agencies. The FAA, USDA/WS, or private contractors may be consulted by airport authorities or state and local agencies to review impacts of proposed EPA-regulated projects on aviation safety. There is one federal act administered by the EPA and one EPA regulation of specific interest to GA airports faced with hazardous wildlife problems: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as Amended (7 U.S. Code 136; Public Law 104.317). This act, administered by the EPA, governs the registration, labeling, classifica- tion, and use of pesticides. Any substance used as a pesticide must be registered with the EPA and with the respective state pesticide regulatory agency. Pesticides are generally classified as either general use or restricted use. There are few restrictions on who may purchase or use gen- eral use pesticides. Restricted use pesticides may only be sold to and used by certified applicators or persons under their direct supervision, and only for those uses covered by the certified appli- cator’s certification. Anyone wishing to use restricted use pesticides, apply any pesticides to the land of another, or apply any pesticides for hire must be a certified applicator or work under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, and even then they may only use pesticides covered by the certified applicator’s certification. 138 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports There are several parts to a pesticide label. This shows the front portion of a zinc phosphide pesticide that is labeled for use at airports. Always read and follow all pesticide label directions.

This has direct application to GA airport personnel wanting to use pesticides to help manage hazardous wildlife at the airport. Before airport personnel may apply pesticides to control, for example, field mice, woodchucks, or insects, they or their direct supervisor must be a certified applicator (see state EPA section below). Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Title 40 CFR Part 258.10 specifically addresses landfills and airports. Recognizing that birds can be attracted in large numbers to municipal solid waste landfills, and recognizing the potential threat posed by birds to aircraft safety, the U.S. EPA requires owners or operators of new MSWLF units to demonstrate successfully that such units do not create hazardous conditions for aircraft. This requirement also extends to lateral expansions of existing MSWLF units that are located within 10,000 feet of any airport runway used by turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet of any air- port runway used only by piston-type aircraft. If a new or expanded waste disposal operation is proposed within 5 statute miles of a runway end at a public use airport, the EPA also requires the operator to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division office and the airport operator of the proposal. Approval or disapproval of a landfill site is the responsibility of the EPA, state and local gov- erning bodies, and zoning boards. Other federal agencies may only comment as to whether they would consider the proposed landfill to be compatible or incompatible with their mission requirements. For example, the FAA may only comment on a proposed landfill’s effect on avia- tion safety. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission and Responsibility The mission of the U.S. FWS is to conserve, protect, and enhance the nation’s fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all people. The U.S. FWS is responsible for the conservation and enhancement of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, certain marine mammals, anadromous fishes, and wetlands. The U.S. FWS also manages the National Government Agencies and Regulations Impacting Wildlife Hazard Control at General Aviation Airports 139 The operator of any landfill located within 5 miles of an airport must notify the airport operator and the FAA of any planned expansion. (Photo E. Cleary)

Wildlife Refuge System, enforces federal wildlife laws, and conducts biological reviews of the environmental impacts of development projects. The U.S. FWS renders biological opinions on proposed federal activities that might impact federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat. These opinions are solicited through a “Section 7 consultation,” as required under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531–1544, 87 Statute 884, as amended). The U.S. FWS has primary responsibility for implementation and enforcement of the Migra- tory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as Amended (U.S. Code 603–711; 40 Statute 755). The United States, Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Japan are signatories to the MBTA. This act pro- vides the statutory foundation for the federal protection and management of migratory birds in the United States (50 CFR 1–199). 140 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports A young bald eagle waits for his parents to bring him more food. Between 1990 and 2008, 113 bald eagle strikes were reported to the FAA; 44 of those strikes involved GA aircraft. (Photo courtesy D. Dewhurst, U.S. FWS National Digital Library)

Title 50 CFR Parts 1 to 199. These regulations govern the management of federally protected wildlife within the United States and its territories based on the authority estab- lished in the MBTA. These regulations also establish procedures for issuing permits to “take” [pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any wild animal (50 CFR 10.12)] federally protected species. In general, a federal depredation permit issued by the U.S. FWS must be obtained before any nongame migratory birds may be taken, or before any migratory game birds may be taken outside of the normal hunting season or beyond established bag limits. Federal law protects all migratory birds, including their nests and eggs: “A migratory bird [is] . . . any bird whatever its origin and whether or not raised in captiv- ity, which belongs to a species listed in sect. 10.13 [of 50 CFR] or which is a mutation or a hybrid of any such species, including any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird, or any part, nest, or egg thereof” (50 CFR 10.12). This list includes almost all native bird species in the United States, with the exception of nonmigratory game birds such as turkeys and grouse, and some introduced game birds such as pheasants and chukars. Exotic and feral species such as graylag geese, Muscovy ducks, European starlings, house (English) sparrows, and rock pigeons are not listed in 50 CFR 10.13 and are therefore not protected by federal law. In addition to federal protection, all states protect migratory birds as well as resident game birds such as pheasants, turkeys, grouse, and partridges. States may or may not protect exotic or feral species. With the exception of federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species, federal law does not protect terrestrial mammals, reptiles, or other wildlife taxa (such as deer, coyotes, raccoons, groundhogs, snakes, turtles, and freshwater fish). Protection of these wildlife groups is left to the individual states. Government Agencies and Regulations Impacting Wildlife Hazard Control at General Aviation Airports 141 These swallow nests are under the air traffic control tower’s upper exterior catwalk. Active nests are protected and a federal depredation permit is needed before they may be taken. (Photo E. Garcia)

Depredation Permitting Requirements and Procedures Persons wishing to take migratory birds, nests, or eggs as part of a GA airport wildlife man- agement program must first secure a depredation permit from the U.S. FWS. Also, some state wildlife management agencies may require that a state permit be obtained. Persons wishing to take state-protected species must first secure a permit from their respective state wildlife man- agement agency. For assistance in obtaining any needed federal and/or state depredation per- mits, contact the office of the local USDA/Wildlife Services (Appendix B). As a general rule, the U.S. FWS will not issue depredation permits without concurrence from USDA/Wildlife Services. Standing Depredation Orders Federal law allows people to protect themselves and their property from damage caused by migratory birds. Provided no effort is made to kill or capture the birds, a depredation permit is not required to merely scare or herd depredating migratory birds other than endangered and threatened species or bald and golden eagles (50 CFR 21.41). In addition, certain species of migratory birds may be killed or captured without a federal permit under specific circumstances, most of which relate to agricultural situations. A Stand- ing Depredating Order that has applicability at GA airports concerns blackbirds and related species: 142 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Muscovy ducks, an escaped exotic species, are not protected by federal law. However, some states protect them. Check with the state wildlife management agency before taking such birds. (Photo E. Garcia)

“A federal permit shall not be required to control yellow-headed, red-winged, rusty and Brewer’s blackbird, cowbirds, all grackles, crows, and magpies, when found committing or about to commit depredation upon ornamental or shade trees, agricultural crops, livestock, or wildlife, or when concentrated in such numbers and manner as to constitute a health hazard or other nuisance . . . ” (50 CFR 21.43). State laws may not mirror federal law in this respect. For example, in Ohio, crows may not be killed under any circumstances, outside of the state crow hunting season, without a state-issued depredation permit, and blackbirds may not be killed on Sundays. Resident Canada geese may be taken within a 3-mile radius of National Plan of Integrated Air- port Systems’ airports. Airports and/or their agents must first obtain all necessary authorizations from landowners for all management activities conducted outside the airport’s boundaries and be in compliance with all state and local laws and regulations [50 CFR 21.49 d (5)]. Resident Canada geese may be taken between April 1st and September 15th. The destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs may take place between March 1st and June 30th [50 CFR, part 21.49 d (3)]. Government Agencies and Regulations Impacting Wildlife Hazard Control at General Aviation Airports 143 Federal regulations allow the taking of blackbirds that are causing damage or posing a threat to human safety. Cereal grains and sunflowers should never be grown on or near airport grounds. (Photo courtesy USDA) People feeding semi-domesticated ducks in a park can pose a serious threat to aviation safety if the park is located too close to the airport. (Photo E. Cleary)

Persons wishing to take any other migratory birds, or to take migratory birds in situations other than those described above, must first secure a federal migratory bird depredation permit from the U.S. FWS, and in some cases a state depredation permit. The first step in obtaining the necessary permits is to contact the nearest USDA/WS state office (Appendix B). State Agencies Specific state regulations and their enforcement are not addressed in this guidebook because of their wide variability. The following general comments are provided as background information. When dealing with GA airport wildlife issues, consult state and local regulatory agencies hav- ing jurisdiction over aviation safety and regulation, wildlife and natural resources, environmen- tal protection, health, law enforcement, and others as applicable. State Wildlife Management Agencies Wildlife management authority for resident nonmigratory birds, terrestrial mammals, fresh- water fish, reptiles, and other taxa rest with state wildlife management agencies. These agencies establish the take and possession regulations for all state-protected species. States set their migra- tory game-bird hunting seasons and bag limits within the guidelines established by the U.S. FWS. States may list certain wildlife and plant species as threatened or endangered that are not con- sidered as such at the federal level. Persons needing to take state-protected species outside of the legal hunting season or beyond the established bag limits to promote airport safety must first secure a state depredation permit. Contact the nearest USDA/WS office (Appendix B) for assistance in obtaining any necessary state depredation permits. State Environmental Protection Agencies Landfill Siting Permits and Inspections With concurrence from the U.S. EPA, state EPAs, local governing bodies, and zoning boards have the final responsibility for issuing landfill permits. It is also a state responsibility to inspect all landfills to ensure compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations. 144 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Non-migratory game bird management is the responsibility of state wildlife management agencies. Between January 1, 1990, and March 31, 2009, 43 wild turkey strikes were reported to the FAA. Of the 43 reported turkey strikes, 27 involved GA aircraft and 11 occurred at GA airports. (Photo courtesy G. M. Stolz, U.S. FWS National Digital Library)

Pesticide Registration Before a pesticide may be sold or used, it must be registered with the U.S. EPA and with the respective state’s pesticide regulatory agency. Special local need (SLN) registered pesticides may only be used in the state—and in some cases, the specific geographical location—for which the SLN registration has been issued. Pesticide Applicator Licensing With U.S. EPA concurrence, each state is responsible for establishing pesticide applicator licensing requirements and applicator training procedures. The retail sale and use of restricted use pesticides is limited to certified applicators or persons working under their direct supervi- sion and only for those uses covered by the certified applicator’s certification. Anyone who uses restricted use pesticides, applies any pesticides for hire, or applies any pes- ticide to the land of another must be a certified applicator or working under the direct supervi- sion of a certified applicator, and may only use pesticides covered by the certified applicator’s certification. Airports The majority of GA wildlife aircraft strikes occur at or near the airport. Almost 80% of GA strikes occur below 1,000 ft AGL (Cleary and Dickey 2008b). The logical place to start addressing wildlife strike hazards is at the airport. Everyone—airport operators, fixed base operators (FBOs), air traf- fic control personnel, and pilots—working at or using an airport must do his or her part to reduce the problem. Without the full cooperation of all parties, the problem cannot be solved. Airport Operator The operator of a public-use airport must demonstrate that the airport is properly and ade- quately equipped and that programs are in place to provide a safe airport-operating environment. Government Agencies and Regulations Impacting Wildlife Hazard Control at General Aviation Airports 145 Landfill proponents must notify the FAA about plans to establish a new landfill or expand an existing one. However, the FAA cannot stop construction or expansion of a landfill. It can only say whether it considers the proposed construction or expan- sion compatible with safe airport operation. Approval of landfill construction or expansion projects is the responsibility of state and local governing bodies and zoning boards. (Photo courtesy USDA)

Included in this regulation is the need to address wildlife hazard issues, conduct wildlife hazard evaluations, and develop wildlife hazard control plans. Each public-use airport operator should take immediate action to correct wildlife hazards whenever they are detected. An important part of this process is establishing procedures for air- port employees or tenants to report hazardous wildlife on or near air operation areas to the appropriate airport personnel. Air Traffic Control At controlled airports, air traffic control personnel must report any unsafe conditions to the appropriate airport personnel any time they are observed, including hazardous wildlife on or near the AOA. Also, to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other circumstances, air traffic con- trollers are required to issue advisory information on pilot-reported, tower-reported, or radar- observed and pilot-verified bird activity, and relay bird activity information to adjacent facilities and to flight service stations whenever it appears that the wildlife hazard will become a factor in the area (FAA Order 7110.65, 2-1-22). Fixed Base Operators FBOs have a responsibility to report all unsafe conditions at or near an airport, including birds or other wildlife that could pose a threat to aircraft safety. FBO personnel should report all known wildlife strikes. Strikes can be reported electronically at wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov. Wildlife strikes can also be reported by completing and mailing a paper copy of FAA Form 5200- 7 Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report (see Appendix F). Pilots Pilots have a responsibility to report all unsafe conditions at or near an airport, including birds or other wildlife that could pose a threat to aircraft safety. Pilots and other airport personnel 146 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Airport operators should encourage pilots to report unsafe conditions, including the presence of hazardous wildlife at the airport. (Photo E. Cleary)

Government Agencies and Regulations Impacting Wildlife Hazard Control at General Aviation Airports 147 Do not allow airport or FBO employees to feed feral cats or dogs. The pet food attracts rats and other small mammals, which in turn attract predatory birds. (Photo E. Cleary) Pilots can be an excellent source of information about the kind of wildlife commonly occurring at an airport. They should report any hazardous wildlife they see. (Photo E. Cleary) should report all known wildlife strikes. Strikes can be reported electronically at wildlife-mitigation. tc.faa.gov. Wildlife strikes can also be reported by completing and mailing FAA Form 5200-7 Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report. This form can be downloaded and printed from the above web- site and duplicated as needed, and a copy of it is located in Appendix F. All strike reports are closely screened and edited to maintain validity and prevent duplicate entries in the database. Private Contractors Managing hazardous wildlife at and near airports is a key part of any airport’s overall safety management plan. As has already been discussed, all aircraft are vulnerable to damage from wildlife strikes. Because of the complexities involved in conducting wildlife hazard surveys and

developing WHMPs, where practical and affordable, GA airport managers are encouraged to use the services of a qualified airport wildlife biologist. There are many competent and qualified air- port wildlife biologists working in the private sector. The FAA requires that wildlife biologists conducting WHAs or presenting training for airport personnel actively involved in implement- ing FAA-approved WHMPs at certificated airports meet certain standards of professional train- ing and/or experience in wildlife hazard management at airports. To the extent practical, GA airport managers would do well to adhere to the same standards when attempting to deal with hazardous wildlife problems. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University maintains a website listing some private sector wildlife biologists that meet the FAA’s standards for qualified airport wildlife biologists: wildlife.pr.erau.edu/workshop/qualified_biologists.html. AC 150/52000-36, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologists Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assess- ments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Haz- ards on Airports, explains these requirements. A Web link for this and other ACs can be found in Appendix C. 148 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Birds and aircraft will always compete for airspace. Airport managers must work to keep their airports free of birds and other hazardous wildlife. (Photo E. Cleary)

AAir carrier aircraft. An aircraft that is being operated by an air carrier and is categorized as either a large air carrier aircraft if designed for at least 31 passenger seats or a small air carrier air- craft if designed for more than nine passenger seats but less than 31 passenger seats, as determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation authority (14 CFR 139.5). General aviation aircraft include all other civilian owned and operated aircraft. Air operations area (AOA). Any area of an airport used or intended to be used for landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft. An air operations area includes such paved areas or unpaved areas that are used or intended to be used for the unobstructed movement of aircraft in addition to its associated runway, taxiways, or apron. Airport. An area of land or other hard surface, excluding water, that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, including any buildings and facilities (14 CFR 139.5). Airport operator. The operator (private or public) or sponsor of a public-use airport. Approach or departure airspace. The airspace, within 5 statute miles of an airport, through which aircraft move during landing or takeoff. B Bird balls. High-density plastic floating balls that can be used to cover ponds and prevent birds from using the sites. Bird hazard. See Wildlife hazard. Bird strike. See Wildlife strike. C Concurrent use. Aeronautical property used for compatible non-aviation purposes while at the same time serving the primary purpose for which it was acquired, and the use is clearly ben- eficial to the airport. The concurrent use should generate revenue to be used for airport purposes (see Order 5190.6A, Airport Compliance Requirements, sect. 5h). Construct a new municipal solid waste landfill. To begin to excavate, grade land, or raise structures to prepare a municipal solid waste landfill as permitted by the appropriate regulatory or permitting agency. 149 Glossary

Cover. Vegetation over a ground surface serving as shelter for wildlife that are roosting, resting, nesting, or feeding. Cover types. A descriptive term characterizing vegetative composition and physical charac- teristics of a plant community. D Detention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold storm water for short periods of time, generally less than 48 hours (compare with retention ponds). Dredge spoil containment areas. Dredge spoil is the material removed during dredging oper- ations intended to help keep harbors or boat channels open when they become silted in due to river or tidal actions. Dredge spoil containment areas are areas where dredge material is disposed of or stored. Dump. The actively used and unvegetated part of an area where refuse (garbage) is placed and allowed to accumulate on the ground surface without periodic covering or compacting. This includes both authorized and unauthorized areas. E Establish a new municipal solid waste landfill. When the first load of putrescible (organic matter) waste is received on site for placement in a prepared municipal solid waste landfill. F Fly ash. The fine, sand-like residue resulting from the complete incineration of an organic fuel source. Fly ash typically results from the combustion of coal or organic waste used to operate a power-generating plant. Furbearer. Refers to mammals that are generally hunted or trapped for their fur, such as fox, raccoon, and mink. G General aviation aircraft. All civilian aircraft not owned or operated for commercial passen- ger transport. General aviation airport. Public use airports that are closed to air carrier operations except in unusual circumstances such as emergencies. H Hazardous wildlife. Species of wildlife (birds, mammals, reptiles, insects, earth worms), including feral animals and domesticated animals not under control, that are associated with air- craft strike problems, are capable of causing structural damage to airport facilities, or act as attractants to other wildlife that pose a strike hazard (AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports; 14 CFR 139.3). 150 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports

Glossary 151 L Loafing. Wildlife that are “loafing” are simply killing time, just hanging around until it is time to look for food or a place to roost. M Mammal strike. See Wildlife strike. Migratory bird. “[A] migratory bird [is] . . . any bird whatever its origin and whether or not raised in captivity, which belongs to a species listed in Section 10.13 [of 50 CFR] or which is a mutation or a hybrid of any such species, including any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.” (50 CFR 10.12). This list includes almost all native bird species in the United States, with the exception of nonmigratory game birds such as pheas- ants, turkeys, and grouse. Exotic and feral species such as graylag geese, Muscovy ducks, European starlings, house (English) sparrows, and rock pigeons (feral pigeons) also are not listed in 50 CFR 10.13 and are therefore not protected by federal law. Movement area. The runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airport that are used for taxi- ing or hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps (apron areas) and aircraft parking areas (14 CFR 139.3). Municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF). A publicly or privately owned discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined under 40 CFR 257.2. An MSWLF may receive other types of wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, small quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste, as defined under 40 CFR 258.2. An MSWLF can consist of either a standalone unit or several cells that receive household waste. N New municipal solid waste landfill. A municipal solid waste landfill that was established or constructed after April 5, 2001 (AC 150/5200-34). P Piston-powered aircraft. Fixed-wing aircraft powered by piston engines. Such aircraft nor- mally use LL-100 fuel. Piston-use airport. Any airport that does not sell Jet-A fuel for fixed-wing turbine-powered aircraft, and primarily serves fixed-wing, piston-powered aircraft. Incidental use of the airport by turbine-powered, fixed-wing aircraft would not affect this designation. However, such air- craft should not be based at the airport (AC 150/5200-33). Propane cannon/exploder. A hollow cylinder that produces a loud explosion to frighten wildlife by the ignition of a metered amount of propane at timed or random intervals or by remote control. Public airport. An airport used or intended to be used for public purposes, which is under the control of a public agency, and of which the area used or intended to be used for landing, taking off, or surface maneuvering of aircraft is publicly owned [49 USC § 47102(16)].

Putrescible waste. Solid waste that contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by micro-organisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or pro- viding food for birds (40 CFR 257.3–8). Putrescible-waste disposal operation. Landfills, garbage dumps, underwater waste dis- charges, or similar facilities where activities include processing, burying, storing, or otherwise disposing of putrescible material, trash, and refuse. Pyrotechnics. Various combustible projectiles launched from a shotgun, pistol, or other device that produce noise, light, and smoke to frighten wildlife. R Raptors. An inclusive term referring to all birds of prey, such as hawks, falcons, eagles, and owls. Retention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold water for long periods of time, generally more than 48 hours (compare with Detention ponds). Roost. Most commonly the term refers to a perch or general area (such as trees or buildings) used by (roosting) birds to rest and sleep. Roosting birds often collect in large numbers. Pigeons, starlings, and blackbirds are the most commonly seen roosting birds. S Sewage sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment processes; and material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage does not include ash generated dur- ing the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works (40 CFR 257.2). Also, the de-watered effluent resulting from secondary or tertiary treatment of municipal sewage and/or industrial wastes, including sewage sludge as referenced in EPA’s Effluent Guidelines and Standards, 40 CFR 401. Sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility or any other such waste having similar characteristics and effect (40 CFR 257.2). Snarge. A term coined by the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History’s Feather Identification Laboratory to describe bird strike remains found on an aircraft or extracted from an aircraft engine. Snarge may contain a mixture of blood, feathers, bone, and muscle tissue. Solid waste. Any garbage, refuse, or sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treat- ment plant, or air pollution control facility, and other discarded material, including solid liq- uid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but not including solid or dis- solved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges that are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Statute 923) (40 CFR 257.2). 152 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports

TTake (wildlife). To pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any wild animal (50 CFR 10.12). Turbine-powered aircraft. Aircraft powered by turbine engines including turbojets and tur- boprops but excluding turbo-shaft, rotary-wing aircraft. Such aircraft normally use Jet-A fuel (AC 150/5200-33). Turbine-use airport. Any airport that sells Jet-A fuel for fixed-wing turbine-powered aircraft. W Wastewater treatment facility. Any devices or systems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes, including Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), as defined by Section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-576) and the Water Quality Act of 1937 (PL 100-4). This definition includes any pretreatment involving the reduction of the amount of pol- lutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW [40 CFR 404.3 (o), (p), (q)]. Wildlife. Any wild animal, including without limitation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, fish, amphibian, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, including any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof (50 CFR 10.12, Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants). As used in this manual, wildlife includes feral animals and domestic animals out of the control of their owners (14 CFR 139, Certification of Airports). Wildlife attractants. Any human-made structure, land-use practice, or human-made or nat- ural geographic feature that can attract or sustain hazardous wildlife within the landing or depar- ture airspace, AOA, loading ramps (apron areas), or aircraft parking areas of an airport. These attractants can include but are not limited to architectural features, landscaping, waste disposal sites, wastewater treatment facilities, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands (AC 150/5200-33). Wildlife hazard. A potential for a damaging aircraft collision with wildlife on or near an air- port (14 CFR 139.3). Wildlife strike. A wildlife strike has occurred when: • A pilot reports striking one or more birds or other wildlife; • Aircraft maintenance personnel identify aircraft damage as having been caused by a wildlife strike; • Personnel on the ground report seeing an aircraft strike one or more birds or other wildlife; • Bird or other wildlife remains, whether in whole or in part, are found within 200 feet of a runway centerline, unless another reason for the animal’s death is identified; or • The animal’s presence on the airport had a significant negative effect on a flight (i.e., aborted takeoff, aborted landing, high-speed emergency stop, aircraft left pavement area to avoid col- lision with animal) [criteria 1–4 adopted from Transport Canada (MacKinnon et al. 2001)]. Glossary 153

154 AAWV American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians AC Advisory Circular A-C Alpha-Chloralose ADC Animal Damage Control (former name of USDA/WS) AGL Above Ground Level AIP Airport Improvement Program AOA Air Operations Area APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service APP Office of Airport Planning and Programming ATC Air Traffic Control AWHWG Airport Wildlife Hazards Working Group BASH Bird/Aircraft Strike Hazard (USAF) BSCC Bird Strike Committee Canada BSC–USA Bird Strike Committee–United States of America C&D Landfills Construction and Demolition Landfills CFR Code of Federal Regulations EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement FAA Federal Aviation Administration FBO Fixed Base Operator FDA Food and Drug Administration FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FOD Foreign Object Debris, Foreign Object Damage GA General Aviation MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSWLF Municipal Solid Waste Landfill NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOTAM Notices to Airmen NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems NTSB National Transportation Safety Board NWRC National Wildlife Research Center (USDA) OFA Object Free Area OFZ Obstacle Free Zone RC Radio-controlled RPZ Runway Protection Zone Acronyms

SLN Special Local Need TSS Threshold Siting Service USAF United States Air Force USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers U.S. DOD United States Department of Defense USDA/WS United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency U.S. FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WCP Wildlife Control Personnel WHA Wildlife Hazard Assessment WHMP Wildlife Hazard Management Plan WHWG Wildlife Hazard Working Group WS Wildlife Services (USDA) Acronyms 155

156 Allan, J. R., and A. P. Orosz. The Costs of Bird Strikes to Commercial Aviation. In Bird Strike 2001, Proceedings of the Bird Strike Committee–USA/Canada Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada, 2001, pp. 218–226. Boggess, E. K. Raccoons. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/handbook/index.asp. Cleary, E. C. Waterfowl. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/handbook/index.asp. Cleary, E. C., and A. Dickey. Ranking Wildlife Species Hazardous to General Aviation Aircraft. Unpublished data developed for Task 2, ACRP Project 04-06, Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports. Biozone LLC, Prescott, AZ, and WASHMan LLC, Brookston, IN, 2008a. Cleary, E. C., and A. Dickey. Wildlife Aircraft Strikes at United States General Aviation Airports, 1990 to 2007. Unpublished data developed for Task 2, ACRP Project 04-06, Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Haz- ards at General Aviation Airports. Biozone LLC, Prescott, AZ, and WASHMan LLC, Brookston, IN, 2008b. Cleary, E. C., and R. A. Dolbeer. Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for Airport Operators, 2nd ed. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, DC, 2005. wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/. Cleary, E. C., R. A. Dolbeer, and S. E. Wright. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–2004. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Serial Report No. 10, DOT/FAA/ AS/00-6(AAS-310). Washington, DC, 2004. Cleary, E. C., R. A. Dolbeer, and S. E. Wright. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–2004. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Serial Report No. 11, DOT/FAA/ AS/00-6(AAS-310). Washington, DC, 2005. Cleary, E. C., R. A. Dolbeer, and S. E. Wright. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–2005. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Serial Report No. 12, DOT/FAA/ AS/00-6(AAS-310). Washington, DC, 2006. Cleary, E. C., R. A. Dolbeer, and S. E. Wright. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–2006. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Serial Report No. 13, DOT/FAA/ AS/00-6(AAS-310). Washington, DC, 2007. Cleary, E. C., S. E. Wright, and R. A. Dolbeer. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–1999. Serial Report No. 6. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, DC, 2000. Cleary, E. C., S. E. Wright, and R. A. Dolbeer. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–2000. Serial Report No. 7. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, DC, 2002. Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs): available at www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html Title14 CFR Part 139, Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers, section 139.337, Wildlife Hazard Management, pages 846–847 (June 2004). Title 40 CFR Part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, section 258.10, Airport Safety, pages 395-396 (July 2003). Title 50 CFR Parts 1–100, Wildlife and Fisheries, 494 pages (October 2003). Dolbeer, R. A. Blackbirds and Their Control. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/handbook/ index.asp. Dolbeer, R. A. Birds and Aircraft: Fighting for Airspace in Crowded Skies. Proc., Vertebrate Pest Conference, Vol. 19, 2000, pp. 37–44. Bibliography

Dolbeer, R. A., and P. Eschenfelder. Amplified Bird-Strike Risks Related to Population Increases of Large Birds in North America. Proc., International Bird Strike Committee 26, Vol. 1, 2003, pp. 49–67. Dolbeer, R. A., and S. E. Wright. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Serial Report No. 14, DOT/FAA/AS/00-6(AAS-310). Washington, DC, 2008. Dolbeer, R. A., S. E. Wright, and E. C. Cleary. Bird and Other Wildlife Strikes to Civilian Aircraft in the United States, 1994. Interim report, DTFA01-91-Z-02004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, for Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City, N.J., 1995. Dolbeer, R. A., S. E. Wright, and E. C. Cleary. Ranking the Hazard Level of Wildlife Species to Civil Aviation in the USA, Update #1. Special Report for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administra- tion, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, DC, 2004. Emiley, A., and T. Dewey. Zenaida macroura, Animal Diversity Web, 2007. http://animaldiversity.ummz. umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Zenaida_macroura.html. Accessed December 05, 2009. Green, J. S., and P. S. Gipson. Feral Dogs. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/handbook/ index.asp. Green, J. S., F. R. Henderson, and M. D. Collinge. Coyotes. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/ handbook/index.asp. Hygnstrom, S. E., and S. R. Craven. Hawks and Owls. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/ handbook/index.asp. Hygnstrom, S. E., R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson (eds.). Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. icwdm.org/handbook/index.asp. International Civil Aviation Organization. Manual on the ICAO Bird Strike Information System (IBIS), 2nd ed. International Civil Aviation Organization, Quebec, Canada, 1986. Johnson, R. American Crow Control. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/handbook/index.asp. Johnson, R. J., and J. F. Glahn. Starlings and Their Control. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/ handbook/index.asp. MacKinnon, B., R. Sowden, and S. Dudley (eds.). Sharing the Skies: An Aviation Guide to the Management of Wildlife Hazards. Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2001. McCabe, T. R., and R. E. McCabe. Recounting Whitetails Past. In The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and Population Management (W. J. McShea, H. B. Underwood, and J. H. Rappole, eds.). Smithsonian Insti- tution, Washington, DC, 1997, pp. 11–26. Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Address Aircraft-Wildlife Strikes. 2003. http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/pdf/FAAmitigation moa.pdf. Mirarchi, R., T. Baskett. 1994. Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). The Birds of North America, 117: 1–20. Nall Report Accident Trends and Factors for 2000. AOPA Air Safety Foundation, Frederick, MD, 2001. www.aopa.org/asf/publications. Nall Report Accident Trends and Factors for 2005. AOPA Air Safety Foundation, Frederick, MD, 2006. www.aopa.org/asf/publications. The National Economic Impact of Civil Aviation. July 2002. DRI∑WEFA, Inc., and the Campbell-Hill Aviation Group, Inc., July 2000. www.gaservingamerica.org/library_pdfs/national_economic.pdf. O’Gara, B. W. Eagles. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/handbook/index.asp. Phillips, R. L., and R. H. Schmidt. Foxes. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/handbook/ index.asp. Richardson, W. J., and T. West. Serious Birdstrike Accidents to Military Aircraft: Updated List and Summary. Proc., 25th International Bird Strike Committee Meeting, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2000, pp. 67–98. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2005. Version 6.2.2006. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 2006. www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2005.html. Seubert, J. L. Assessing the Implementation of Wildlife Hazard Management Programs at Civil Airports. Proc., Bird Strike Committee Europe, Vol. 22, 1994, pp. 275–284. Thorpe, J. 2004. Fatalities and Destroyed Aircraft Due to Bird Strikes, 1912–2002. Proc., 26th International Bird Strike Committee Meeting, Warsaw, Poland, Vol. 1, 2003, pp. 85–114. Bibliography 157

Thorpe, J. Fatalities and Destroyed Aircraft Due to Bird Strikes, 2002–2004 (with an appendix of animal strikes). Proc., 27th International Bird Strike Committee Meeting, Athens, Greece, Vol. 1, 2005, pp. 17–24. Transport Canada. Wildlife Control Procedures Manual. Safety and Security, Airdrome Safety Branch. TP11500E. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2002. www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/aerodrome/wildlifecontrol. Web sites: Bird Strike Committee–Canada. www.birdstrikecanada.com/. Bird Strike Committee–USA. www.birdstrike.org/. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (2-volume manual). University of Nebraska Cooperative Exten- sion Division, Lincoln, Nebraska. icwdm.org/handbook/index.asp or icwdm.org/Default.asp. Transport Canada. www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/aerodrome/wildlifecontrol/. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services. www.aphis.gov.usda.gov/ws. U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Team. afsafety.af.mil/ afsc/bash/home.html. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. www.fws.gov/. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division. www.faa.gov/arp/. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Wildlife Mitigation and Wildlife Strike Database. wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/. Williams, D. E., and R. M. Corrigan. Pigeons. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds.), University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1994. 2 vols. icwdm.org/handbook/ index.asp. Wright, S. E., and R. A. Dolbeer. Percentage of Wildlife Strikes Reported and Species Identified under a Volun- tary System. In Proceedings of Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada Meeting, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2005. (www.birdstrikecanada.com). Field Guides—Birds Bull, J., J. Farrand, Jr., and L. Hogan. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds: Eastern Region, 2nd ed. Alfred Knopf, New York, 1994. Griggs, J. L. All the Birds of North America: American Bird Conservancy’s Field Guide. Harper Collins, New York, 1997. National Geographic Society. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, 4th ed. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC, 2002. Peterson, R. T. A Field Guide to the Birds: A Completely New Guide to All the Birds of Eastern and Central North America, 4th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1998. Peterson, R. T. A Field Guide to Western Birds: A Completely New Guide to Field Marks of All Species Found in North America West of the 100th Meridian and North of Mexico, Reissue ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1990. Robbins, C. S., B. Bruun, and H. S. Zim. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York, 1984. Sibley, D. A. The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2009. Sibley, D. A. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2003. Sibley, D. A., and R. Cech. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Eastern North America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2003 Field Guides—Mammals Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider. A Field Guide to the Mammals: North America North of Mexico. 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1998. Elbroch, M. Mammal Tracks & Sign: A Guide to North American Species. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA, 2004. National Audubon Society. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals (revised and expanded). Alfred Knopf, New York, 2000. Murie, O. J. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1954. Life Histories Alsop, F. J., III. Birds of North America, Eastern Region (751 pages), Western Region (752 pages). DK Publishing, Inc., New York, 2001. 158 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports

Ehrlich. P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. The Birder’s Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds, Including All Species That Regularly Breed North of Mexico. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1988. Chapman, J. A., and G. A. Feldhamer (eds). Wild Mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1982. Sibley, D. A. The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1991. Airport Hazardous Wildlife Control Manuals ACI. Aerodrome Wildlife Hazard Prevention and Wildlife Management Handbook. Airports Council International, Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. Australian Airports Association. Bird and Wildlife Hazard Control Program. Issue: 1.0. National Template. 2005. CAA. CAP 680 Wildlife Control on Aerodromes. Civil Aviation Authority, London, 1998. www.caa.co.uk/. Cleary, E. C., and R. A. Dolbeer. Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for Airport Operators, 2nd ed. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, DC, 2005. wildlife- mitigation.tc.faa.gov/. MacKinnon, B. and K. Russell. Wildlife Control Procedures Manual. TP11500E. Transport Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 2002. MacKinnon, B., R. Sowden, and S. Dudley (eds). Sharing the Skies: An Aviation Industry Guide to the Manage- ment of Wildlife Hazards. Transport Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 2001. Bibliography 159

160 A P P E N D I X A Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, Headquarters and Regional Offices Accurate as of November 2009 FAA National Headquarters Airports Division 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Name Mail Stop Phone Number Michael Brown, Div Mgr. AAS-300 202-267-7653 Bruce Landry, Staff Cert Specialist – All Regions AAS-300 202-267-8729 Freddie James, Staff Cert Specialist AAS-300 202-267-8792 Phillip Davenport, Staff Cert Specialist AAS-300 202-267-7072 Kenneth Langert, Staff Cert Specialist AAS-300 202 493-4529 Keri Spencer, Staff Cert Specialist – SMS AAS-300 202-267-8972 Randy Moseng, Staff Cert Specialist – SMS AAS-300 404 474-5433 Susan Gardner, Aviation Safety Analyst AAS-300 202-267-5203 Marc Tonnacliff, Senior ARFF Specialist AAS-300 202-267-8732 John Weller, Wildlife Biologist AAS-300 202-267-3778 Fax: 202-267-5383 FAA Alaska Region Headquarters Airports Division 222 West 7th Avenue, #14 Anchorage, AK 99513 Name Mail Stop Phone Number Byron K.Huffman, Div Mgr. AAL-600 907-271-5438 Maverick Douglas, Lead Insp. AAL-604 907-271-5444 Dave Wahto AAL-605 907-271-3815 Stephen Powell AAL-624 907-271-5448 Fax: 907-271-2851

Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, Headquarters and Regional Offices 161 FAA Central Region Headquarters Airports Division 601 East 12th Street Federal Building Kansas City, MO 64106 Serving: KS, IA, MO, NE Name Mail Stop Phone Number Jim Johnson Div Mgr. ACE-600 816-329-2601 Rodney Joel, Br Mgr. ACE-620 816 329-2631 Mike Mullen, Lead Insp. ACE-620C 816-329-2618 Pat Haynes ACE-620D 816-329-2621 Fax: 816-329-2610 FAA Eastern Region Headquarters Airports Division One Aviation Plaza 159-30 Rockaway Blvd Springfield Gardens, NY 11434 Serving: DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV Name Mail Stop Phone Number Bill Flanagan, Div Mgr. AEA-600 718-553-3330 Harvey DeGraw, Br Mgr. AEA-620 718-553-3352 Evelyn Martinez, Lead Insp. AEA-620 718-553-3348 Dennis O'Donnell AEA-620 718-553-3343 John Green AEA-620 718-553-3342 Guillermo Felix AEA-620 718-553-3345 Mahendra Raghubeer AEA-620 718-553-3347 Jayme Patrick AEA-620 718-553-3091 Fax: 718-995-5615

162 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports FAA Great Lakes Region Headquarters Airports Division O'Hare Lake Office Center 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 Serving: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, ND, SD, WI Name Mail Stop Phone Number Kelvin Solco, Acting Div Mgr. AGL-600 847-294-7272 Ignacio Flores, Br Mgr. AGL-620 847-294-7387 Birkely Rhodes, Lead Insp. AGL-621.1 847-294-7509 Tricia Halpin AGL-621.4 847-294-7160 Alberto Rodriguez AGL-621.2 847-294-7626 Kenneth Taira AGL-621.5 847-294-7519 Nicole Harris AGL-621.6 847-294-7317 Carlton Lambiasi AGL-622.2 847-294-7531 Michael Stephens AGL 621.3 847-294-7533 Fax: 847-294-8088 FAA New England Regional Headquarters Airports Division 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 Serving: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT Name Mail Stop Phone Number LaVerne Reid, Div Mgr. ANE-600 781-238-7600 Michel Hovan, Br Mgr. ANE-620 781-238-7620 Laurie Hyman, Lead Insp. ANE-620 781-238-7630 John Merck ANE-620 781-238-7623 Kelly Slusarski ANE-620 781-238-7632 Fax: 781-238-7608

FAA Northwest Mountain Region Headquarters Airports Division 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Renton, WA 98055 Serving: CO, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, WY Name Mail Stop Phone Number Donna Taylor, Div Mgr. ANM-600 425-227-2600 Bill Watson, Br Mgr. ANM-620 425-227-2606 Peter Hahn, Lead Insp. ANM-624 425-227-2376 Lynn Deardorff ANM-621 425-227-1621 Mark Gabel ANM-627 425-227-2607 Rick Schoder ANM-625 425-227-2619 Fax: 425-227-1600 FAA Southern Region Headquarters Airports Division 1701 Columbus Avenue College Park, GA 30337 (Mail Address: P. O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320) Serving: AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN, VI Name Mail Stop Phone Number Winsome Linfert, Div Mgr. ASO-600 404-305-6700 Jim Castleberry, Br Mgr. ASO-601a 404-305-6702 Vacant, Lead Insp. ASO-620 404-305-6715 Patrick Rogers ASO-620.K 404-305-6716 Jack McSwain AS0-620.J 404-305-6718 Jim Price ASO-620.P 404-305-6721 Fax: 404-305-6730 Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, Headquarters and Regional Offices 163

FAA Western Pacific Region Headquarters Airports Division 15000 Aviation Boulevard Hawthorne, CA 90261 Courier address: use above address Mail address: P. O. Box 92007, World Postal Center, Los Angeles, CA 90009 Serving: AZ, CA, HI, NV Name Mail Stop Phone Number Mark McClardy, Div Mgr. AWP-600 310-725-3600 George Aiken, Br Mgr. AWP-620 310-725-3620 Bill Critchfield, Lead Insp. AWP-620.3 310-725-3622 Elizabeth Louie AWP-620.5 310-725-3636 Steven Oetzell AWP-620.6 310-725-3611 Tony Garcia AWP-620.1 310-725-3634 Patrick J. Lammerding AWP-620.7 310-725-3645 Jake Florendo AWP-620.4 310 725-3653 Fax: 310 725-6847 Honolulu Area Office Ron Simpson HNL-600 808-541-1232 Steven Hicks HNL-676 808-541-1243 Gordon Wong HNL-622 808-541-3565 Fax: 808-541-3462 164 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports FAA Southwest Region Headquarters Airports Division 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298 Serving: AR, LA, NM, OK, TX Name Mail Stop Phone Number Kelvin Solco, Div Mgr. ASW-600 817-222-5600 Joe Washington, Br Mgr. ASW-620 817-222-5620 Bill Mitchell, Lead Insp. ASW-621 817-222-5621 Janny Jack ASW-621B 817-222-5625 Richard Middleton ASW-621A 817-222-5624 Ron Hess ASW-622 817-222-5622 John Dougherty ASW-621C 817-222-5623 Cedric Taylor ASW-621.D 817-222-5615 Fax: 817-222-5984

165 A P P E N D I X B U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, Headquarters and State Offices Accurate as of January 2010 Headquarters U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services Room 1624 South Agriculture Building Washington, DC 20250-3402 (mail address: USDA/APHIS/WS STOP 3402 Washington, DC 20250-3402) William H. Clay, Deputy Administrator (202) 720-2054 FAX:(202) 690-0053 Mike Begier, Airport Wildlife Hazards Program National Coordinator (202) 720-4383 FAX:(202) 690-0053 Operational Support Staff USDA/APHIS/WS Operational Support Staff 4700 River Road, Unit 87, Room 2D26 Riverdale, MD 20737-1234 Joanne Garrett, Director (301) 734-7921 FAX: (301) 734-5157

166 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Eastern Region USDA/APHIS/WS Eastern Regional Office 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27606 Charles S. Brown, Regional Director (919) 855-7200 FAX: (919) 855-7215 Alabama Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico Frank Boyd State Director Room 118, Ext. Hall Auburn Univ. AL 36849 (334) 844-5670 FAX: (334) 844-5321 Arkansas Thurman W. Booth State Director 1020 Lantrip Road, Sherwood, AR 721201 (501) 835-2318 FAX: (501) 835-2350 Connecticut See Massachusetts Delaware See Maryland District of Columbia See Maryland Florida Bernice Constantin State Director 2820 E. University Ave. Gainesville, FL 32641 (352) 377-5556 FAX: (352)377-5559 Georgia Steve Smith State Director School of Forest Res. Univ. of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 (706) 546-5637 FAX: (706) 316-9248 Illinois Scott Beckerman State Director 2869 Via Verde Dr. Springfield, IL 62703 (217) 241-6700 FAX: (217) 241-6702 Indiana Judy Loven State Director Purdue University Smith Hall 901 W. State Street W. Lafayette, IN 47907 (765) 494-6229 FAX: (765) 494-9475 Iowa See Missouri Kentucky See Tennessee Louisiana Dwight LeBlanc State Director P.O. Box 589 Port Allen, LA 70767 (225) 389-0229 FAX: (225) 389-0228 Maine John Forbes State Director Capital West Business Center 79 Leighton Rd, Suite 12 Augusta, ME 04330 (207) 622-8263 FAX: (207) 622-5760

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, Headquarters and State Offices 167 Maryland Kevin Sullivan State Director 1568 Whitehall Road Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 349-8055 FAX: (410) 349-8258 Massachusetts Connecticut Rhode Island Monte Chandler State Director 463 West Street Amherst, MA 01002 (413) 253-2403 FAX: (413) 253-7577 Michigan Peter Butchko State Director 2803 Jolly Rd, Ste.160 Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 336-1928 EXT. 22 FAX: (517) 336-1934 Minnesota Gary Nohrenberg State Director St. Paul Downtown Airport 644 Bayfield St., Suite 215 St. Paul, MN 55107 (651) 224-6027 FAX:(651) 224-4271 Mississippi Kris C. Godwin State Director Room 200, Thompson Hall Mississippi State, MS 39762 (662) 325-3014 FAX: (662) 325-3690 Missouri Iowa Ed Hartin State Director 1714 Commerce Court, Suite C Columbia, MO 65202 (573) 449-3033 FAX: (573) 449-4382 New Hampshire Vermont Parker Hall State Director 59 Chenell Dr., Suite 7 Concord, NH 03301 (603) 223-6832 FAX (603) 229-1951 New Jersey Wendy Anderson State Director 140-C Locust Grove Rd. Pittstown, NJ 08867 (908) 735-5654 X 7 FAX: (908) 735-0821 New York Martin Lowney State Director 1930 Route 9 Castleton, NY 12033 (518) 477-4837 FAX: (518) 477-4899 North Carolina Jon Heisterberg State Director 6213-E. Angus Dr. Raleigh, NC 27617 (919) 786-4480 FAX: (919) 782-4159 Ohio Andy Montoney State Director 6929 Americana Pkwy. Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 892-2514 FAX: (614) 892-2519 Pennsylvania Harris Glass State Director P.O. Box 60827 Summerdale, PA 17106 (717) 236-9451 FAX: (717) 236-9454 Puerto Rico See Alabama Rhode Island See Massachusetts South Carolina Noel Myers State Director 400 Northeast Dr. Suite L Columbia, SC 29203 (803) 786-9455 FAX: (803) 786-9472

168 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Tennessee Brett Dunlap State Director 537 Myatt Dr. Madison, TN 37115 (615) 736-5506 FAX: (615) 736-2768 Vermont Todd Puckett District Supervisor for VT Parker Professional Center 617 Comstock Road #9 Berlin, VT 05602 (802) 223-8690 FAX: (802) 229-1435 Virgin Islands See Alabama Virginia Scott Barras State Director P.O. Box 130 21425 Hull Street Rd. Moseley, VA 23120 (804) 739-7739 FAX: (804) 739-7738 West Virginia Christopher Croson 730 Yokum Street Elkins, WV 26241 (304) 636-1785 FAX: (304) 636-5397 Wisconsin Jason Suckow State Director 732 Lois Drive Sun Prairie, WI 53590 (608) 837-2727 FAX: (608) 837-6754 Western Region USDA/APHIS/WS Western Regional Office 2150 Center Avenue, Bldg. B, Mail Stop 3W9 Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117 Jeffrey S. Green, Regional Director (970) 494-7443 FAX: (970) 494-7455 Alaska See Washington Arizona David Bergman State Director 8836 North 23rd Ave. Suite B-2 Phoenix, AZ 85021 (602) 870-2081 FAX: (602) 870-2951 California Craig Coolahan State Director 3419-A Arden Way Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 979-2675 FAX: (916) 979-2680 Colorado Michael Yeary State Director 12345 W. Alameda Pkwy. Suite 204 Lakewood, CO 80228 (303) 236-5810 FAX: (303) 236-5821 Hawaii Pacific Islands Mike Pitzler State Director 3375 Koapaka Street Suite H-420 Honolulu, HI 96819 (808) 861-8576 FAX: (808) 861-8570

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, Headquarters and State Offices 169 Idaho Mark Collinge State Director 9134 W. Blackeagle Dr. Boise, ID 83709 (208) 378-5077 FAX: (208) 378-5349 Kansas Jeffrey S. Green State Director 4070 Ft. Riley Blvd Manhattan, KS 66502 (785) 537-6855 FAX: (785) 537-6862 Montana John E. Steuber State Director P.O. Box 1938 Billings, MT 59103 (406) 657-6464 FAX: (406) 657-6110 Nebraska Tim Veenendaal State Director 5940 S. 58th St. P.O. Box 81866 Lincoln, NE 68501 (402) 434-2340 FAX: (402) 434-2330 Nevada Mark Jensen State Director 8775 Technology Way Reno, NV 89521 (775) 851-4848 FAX: (775) 851-4828 New Mexico Alan May State Director 8441 Washington NE Albuquerque, NM 87113 (505) 346-2640 FAX: (505) 346-2627 North Dakota Phil Mastrangelo State Director 2110 Miriam Circle Suite A Bismarck, ND 58501 (701) 250-4405 FAX: (701) 250-4408 Oklahoma Kevin Grant State Director 2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 7310 5 (405) 521-4039 FAX: (405) 525-5951 Oregon David Williams State Director 6135 NE. 80th, Suite A8 Portland, OR 97218 (503) 326-2346 FAX: (503) 326-2367 South Dakota Kirk E. Gustad State Director (acting) See Western Regional Office for address and phone number Texas Mike Bodenchuk State Director P.O. Box 100410 San Antonio, TX 78201 (210) 472-5451 FAX: (210) 472-5446 Utah Mike Linnell State Director P.O. Box 26976 Salt Lake City, UT 84126 (801) 975-3315 FAX: (801) 975-3320 Washington Alaska Roger Woodruff State Director 720 O'Leary Street NW Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 753-9884 FAX: (360) 753-9466 Wyoming R.F. Krischke State Director P.O. Box 59 Casper, WY 82602 (307) 261-5336 FAX: (307) 261-5996

Copies of the FAA Advisory Circulars, CertAlerts, and other documents can be downloaded free of charge at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/ http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/ http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/certalerts/ Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design Advisory Circular 150/5200-32, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports Advisory Circular 150/5200-36, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologists Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Con- trolling Wildlife Hazards on Airports Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design CertAlert No. 98-05, Grasses Attractive to Hazardous Wildlife CertAlert No. 04-09, The Relationship between FAA and USDA/WS CertAlert No. 04-16, Deer Hazards to Aviation and Deer Fencing CertAlert No. 06-07, Requests by State Wildlife Agencies to Facilitate and Encourage Habitat for State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern on Airports The FAA Wildlife Strike Database is available at: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/public_html/index.html http://wildlife.pr.erau.edu/ 170 A P P E N D I X C Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circulars and CertAlerts Useful to General Aviation Airports

Suggested Wildlife Control Equipment 171 A P P E N D I X D Equipment for Control of Hazardous Wildlife This equipment list is a suggested minimum that would be found at a small- to medium- sized U.S. airport. Item Importance Quantity Unit Cost (approximate) ($US) Extended Cost ($US) 10 X 40 Binoculars A 1 $200 $200 Field guide to birds of North America A 1 $30 $30 Desk bird book B 1 $30 $30 Field guide to mammals of North America A 1 $30 $30 Computer for record keeping A 1 $1,500 $1,500 Dedicated vehicle A 1 unknown; varies Hearing protection A 4 each $15 $60 Eye protection A 4 each $10 $40 Gloves A 4 each $15 $60 Camera A 1 $150 $150 .22 Cal single shot pyrotechnic launcher A 4 each $30 $120 Bird bombs (100/box)1 A 10 boxes $45 $450 Bird whistlers (100/box) 1 A 10 boxes $45 $450 Shotgun (12-gauge) A 1 each $350 $350 12-gauge shell crackers (100/box) 1 A 4 boxes $100 $400 12-gauge shot shells (#2 steel, 25/box) A 20 boxes $15 $300 Storage container B 1 each $200 $200 M-8 scareaway propane cannons (with bobomat base) C 2 each $575 $1,150 25# Propane bottles C 4 each $25 $100 Avian dissuader laser D 1 each $1,090 $1,090 1 Pyrotechnic rounds have a short shelf life, and failure rate will increase if they are not kept in a cool, dry storage area. Keep enough rounds on hand to ensure harassment efforts are not adversely impacted by shortage.

172 This appendix describes a system (adapted from Seubert 1994) for objectively assessing the implementation of WHMPs at civil airports. Five assessment categories, each with a list of ele- ments to be evaluated, are used to indicate how well an airport’s WHMP is being implemented. Category 1: Management functions related to wildlife hazards at or in the vicinity of the airport Category 2: Bird control at or in the vicinity of the airport Category 3: Mammal control at or in the vicinity of the airport Category 4: Management of habitat and food sources on airport property related to wildlife hazards Category 5: Land uses and food sources off of airport potentially related to wildlife hazards on airport The elements described in categories 1 to 4 are assessed as to the degree that management pro- grams are being implemented. The elements in category 5 are rated as to the degree of hazard posed. Elements within each category are not intended to cover every possibility—they can be modified or expanded to meet situations unique to an airport. During an assessment, each element in categories 1 to 4 is examined and classified as one of the following: S  Satisfactory If an assessor finds that an airport has initiated action to reduce a wildlife hazard according to program and is on schedule, the action would be considered “satisfactory.” U  Unsatisfactory If no measures have been taken, or if inappropriate measures have been taken, the assessment would be “unsatisfactory.” NI Needs Improvement If implementation of a control measure is behind schedule or only partially accomplished, the assessment would be either “needs improvement,” or “unsatisfactory,” depending on the seriousness of the hazard. NA Not Applicable If it is apparent that certain listed techniques or items are not appli- cable to the airport, the assessment would be “not applicable.” If an assessment is either “NI” or “U,” a comment by an assessor is required in the assessment summary (on the last page of the Wildlife Hazard Assessment Form at the end of the appendix). Examples of assessments requiring comments are as follows. (Categories 1 to 4 focus on actions that can be taken on the airport to reduce wildlife hazards.) A P P E N D I X E Assessing Wildlife Hazard Management Plans at Civil Airports

Assessing Wildlife Hazard Management Plans at Civil Airports 173 Category 1: Management functions related to wildlife hazards at or in the vicinity of the airport If permits have not been obtained [Code 1.1 (in the Wildlife Hazard Assessment Form at the end of this appendix)] for shooting or trapping birds or mammals, the assessment would be “U.” If animal remains found on runways are being counted to document bird strikes, but are not being identified by species (Code 1.14), the assessment would be “NI.” Category 2: Bird control at or in the vicinity of airports If distress calls are not being used (Code 2.2), the assessment would be “U.” If the installation of wires (Code 2.9) over an airport pond is behind schedule, the assessment could be “NI” or “U,” depending on the degree of potential hazard. If raptors are not being trapped and relocated (Code 2.23), the assessment would be “U.” Category 3: Mammal control at or in the vicinity of airports If fencing (Code 3.2) is in need of repair or absent, the assessment would be “NI.” If rodenticides (Code 3.12) are not being used to control a rodent population attracting rap- tors, the assessment would be “U.” Category 4: Management of habitat and food sources on airport property related to wildlife hazards If airport litter control is inadequate (Code 4.9), the assessment would be “NI.” If trees used as a roost site (Code 4.5) are not being eliminated or thinned to be made unattrac- tive, the assessment would be “U.” Category 5: Land uses and food sources off airport property potentially related to wildlife hazards on airport This provides a list of off-airport land uses and food sources that may be attractive to birds or other wildlife. The assessor should review this list and score each element on a scale of 0 to 3: 0  land use or food source not present; 1  present but no wildlife problems noted or anticipated; 2  site attracts some hazardous wildlife creating possible or potential problem, site should be monitored; 3  site creates significant wildlife hazard for airport, action should be taken. Wildlife hazards at airports frequently are attributable to these off-site attractants, but airport managers have no authority over the use of private property. However, airport managers can ini- tiate programs to reduce the hazards of these off-airport wildlife attractants (such as garbage dumps, certain agricultural activities) by informing local jurisdictions and landowners of the hazards, and suggesting ways of alleviating them (Code 1.12).

174 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Wildlife Hazard Assessment Form Airport: Date: Page 1 of 6 Category 1: Management functions related to wildlife hazards at or in the vicinity of the airport ASSESSMENT CODE ITEMS S NI U NA 1.1 Acquiring wildlife control permits from federal, state, and local agencies 1.2 Arranging for WHAs and other studies, as needed, to evaluate hazard potential of wildlife attracted by habitats, land uses, and food sources on or in vicinity of airport 1.3 Developing wildlife hazard control program based on WHA and other studies and factors 1.4 Defining and delegating authority and responsibility for wildlife hazard control program 1.5 Supervising, implementing, and coordinating airport wildlife hazard control program 1.6 Evaluating wildlife hazard control program at least once per year 1.7 Training personnel responsible for implementing airport wildlife hazard control program, especially field personnel 1.8 Operating wildlife patrol system with a trained field staff, conducting surveillance/inspections of critical airport areas, and effecting wildlife control when needed or requested 1.9 Establishing a communication capability between wildlife control and ATC personnel 1.10 Maintaining a system for warning pilots about wildlife hazards (such as NOTAMs, ATC, radar observations) 1.11 Ensuring that airport habitats are managed to reduce or eliminate wildlife attractions 1.12 Ensuring that airport policy prohibits feeding of wildlife and exposure of food wastes 1.13 Interacting with local jurisdictions and landowners about zoning, land use, and the resolution of wildlife hazard problems in vicinity of airport 1.14 Maintaining log book with daily record of wildlife control activities, wildlife activity, reported wildlife strikes, and wildlife remains found on runways identified by species 1.15 Reporting all wildlife strikes to FAA

Airport: Date: Page 2 of 6 Category 2: Bird control at or in the vicinity of the airport ASSESSMENT CODE TECHNIQUES S NI U NA DISPERSE, DETER, EXCLUDE, REPEL 2.1 Bird patrols in vehicle 2.2 Bioacoustics (distress calls) 2.3 Electronically generated noise 2.4 Propane cannons 2.5 Pyrotechnics 2.6 Shooting to scare 2.7 Netting hangar rafters, ponds etc. 2.8 Perching deterrents (such as stainless steel needles) 2.9 Overhead wires for ponds, ditches, roofs, etc. 2.10 Chemical repellents 2.11 Falconry 2.12 Dogs 2.13 Radio-controlled aircraft 2.14 Thinning or eliminating roosting trees and shrubs 2.15 Grass management 2.16 Scarecrows 2.17 Dead bird effigies REMOVE 2.18 Chemical capture (alpha chloralose) 2.19 Nest and egg destruction 2.20 Poisoning 2.21 Predators to remove eggs (foxes, pigs, etc.) 2.22 Shooting 2.23 Trapping and relocation (for example, raptors) Assessing Wildlife Hazard Management Plans at Civil Airports 175 Airport: Date: Page 3 of 6 Category 3: Mammal control at or in the vicinity of the airport ASSESSMENT CODE TECHNIQUES S NI U NA DISPERSE, DETER, EXCLUDE, REPEL 3.1 Cattle guards 3.2 Fencing 3.3 Vehicle patrols 3.4 Propane cannons 3.5 Pyrotechnics 3.6 Rodent-resistant sheathing on electrical cables REMOVE 3.7 Controlled hunting (e.g., deer) 3.8 Den destruction (e.g., coyotes) 3.9 Fumigants (e.g., woodchucks) 3.10 Kill trapping (e.g., beavers, muskrats) 3.11 Live trapping and relocation or euthanasia (e.g., dogs) 3.12 Rodenticides (e.g., mice, ground squirrels) 3.13 Shooting (e.g., deer, woodchucks, hares)

Airport: Date: Page 4 of 6 Category 4: Management of habitat and food sources on airport property related to wildlife hazards ASSESSMENT CODE ITEMS S NI U NA AGRICULTURE/VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 4.1 Agricultural crops (especially cereal grains and sunflowers) 4.2 Plowing, mowing, harvesting (rodents, insects, worms) 4.3 Landscaping (fruits and roost sites attractive to birds) 4.4 Brush, shrubs, wood lots (cover, browse for deer) 4.5 Misc. nesting sites (trees) for egrets, raptors, etc. WASTE MANAGEMENT/SANITATION 4.6 Feeding birds and mammals (by people) 4.7 Food waste storage (from cafeterias, and catering services) 4.8 Garbage dumps 4.9 Litter 4.10 Sewage treatment ponds/lagoons/outfalls 4.11 Weeds, construction debris, junk yards 4.12 Animal carcasses (e.g. dead livestock, bird strike remains) WATER SOURCES 4.13 Aquatic vegetation 4.14 Canals, ditches, creeks, waterways 4.15 Low areas on pavement/ground that collect water 4.16 Retention ponds (water, deicing fluid) 4.17 Water fountains MISCELLANEOUS ATTRACTANTS 4.18 Earthworms along runways 4.19 Insect hatches from vegetation or soil 4.20 Seed-producing vegetation. 4.21 Flat roofs (such as gull nesting and loafing sites) 4.22 Structures (hangars, towers, signs, poles, etc.) 176 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Airport: Date: Page 5 of 6 Category 5: Land uses and food sources off airport potentially related to wildlife hazards on airport CODE ITEMS SCOREa COMMENTS AGRICULTURE 5.1 Agricultural crops (especially cereal grains) 5.2 Aquaculture facilities 5.3 Livestock feedlots 5.4 Grain storage or grain mills COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL LAND USES 5.5 Drive-in theaters, amusement parks, etc. 5.6 Restaurants (esp. outdoor eating areas) 5.7 Picnic areas, parks 5.8 Marinas 5.9 Golf courses 5.10 Flat roofs (gull nesting sites) WASTE MANAGEMENT 5.11 Garbage barges 5.12 Garbage dumps 5.13 Garbage transfer stations 5.14 Fish processing plants 5.15 Sewage lagoons, outfalls WATER SOURCES 5.16 Retention ponds (water, feedlots, etc.) 5.17 Canals, creeks, ditches 5.18 Reservoirs, lakes, natural ponds NESTING/LOAFING/FEEDING AREAS 5.19 Wildlife refuges/nature preserves 5.20 Misc. nesting sites (egrets, raptors, etc.) 5.21 Roosting trees (starlings, egrets, etc.) 5.22 Marshes, swamps, mud flats a 0 = not present; 1 = present but no wildlife problems noted or anticipated; 2 = site attracts some hazardous wildlife creating possible or potential problem, site should be monitored; 3 = site creates significant wildlife hazard for airport, action should be taken.

Assessing Wildlife Hazard Management Plans at Civil Airports 177 Airport: Date: Page 6 of 6 Summary: Comments are required for all elements in Categories 1–4 assessed as “Unsatisfactory” or as “Needs Improvement,” or with a score of 2 or 3 in Category 5. Manager or wildlife supervisor: Phone: Fax: E-mail: Assessor: Phone: Fax: E-mail: Assessor’s comments for elements rated “unsatisfactory” or “needs improvement” in Categories 1-4 or for elements scored 2 or 3 in Category 5. Element code Assessment symbol Comments Assessor’s general comments (use back if needed):

178 A P P E N D I X F Federal Aviation Administration Form 5200-7, Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report

Federal Aviation Administration Form 5200-7, Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report 179

180 Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports Mail to: Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-310 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591